14 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



Ridout, 1893, Times, Feb. 22, an architect was employed 

 by a building owner to prepare plans, etc., for certain buildings 

 to cost a fixed sum. Finding the work would cost more than 

 he was prepared to spend, the owner did not proceed with it. 

 The architect sued for his fees, and a jury found a verdict in 

 his favour for 200. In a Scotch case, Landless v. Wilson, 

 1880, 8 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th Ser.) 289, an architect was employed 

 to prepare plans for certain buildings the erection of which 

 was not proceeded with. The building owner, however, made 

 some use of the plans, and the architect accordingly sued for 

 his fees. The building owner then sought to escape liability 

 by showing that the plans had been prepared for a competition, 

 and that, in effect, his services were gratuitous. The Court 

 of Session, however, held that the defendant had failed to 

 prove that the services were gratuitous, and that the architect 

 was entitled to succeed. The rule applicable in cases where 

 the employer fails to continue the employment of an architect 

 has been thus expressed by Mr. Muir Mackenzie (the Official 

 Eeferee): "If, after part performance of his work by an 

 architect, the employer refuses to continue the contract of 

 employment, the architect can recover all sums due for services 

 rendered before refusal, and for what he has lost by not being 

 permitted to complete the contract of employment ; or the 

 architect may treat the contract as rescinded, and recover 

 the value of the services he has rendered." (Horton v. 

 Hemsley, 1908, Times, Feb. 19.) 



8. When fees may be recovered. If the agreement is 

 silent as to the time when an engineer's fees are to be paid, he 

 may recover what is due from time to time as the work 

 proceeds. Where, however, an engineer specially undertakes 

 to supervise the execution of an entire contract upon the price 

 of which he is to be paid a commission, he may find himself 

 unable to recover anything until the entire work is completed. 

 More often, however, the agreement specially provides for 

 payment by instalments on the happening of certain con- 

 tingencies. Thus in an American case (Davis v. New York 

 Steam Co., 1898, N.Y. 33 A. D. 401 ; 1 H. B. C. 122) an 

 engineer offered to prepare plans, etc., and to supervise work 

 for 3 per cent, on the total cost, which offer was accepted, 

 conditioned on agreement terminating in twenty-four months, 

 payment to be made on monthly estimates. It was held 



