20 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



the plaintiff should do his utmost to obtain orders for and sell 

 the various goods " manufactured or sold by the defendant as 

 should from time to time be forwarded or submitted by sample 

 or pattern to T." And it was further provided that the 

 plaintiff should be remunerated by such commission as was 

 specified in the contract. After about two years the defendant's 

 manufactory was burnt down, and he did not resume business, 

 and thenceforth did not employ the plaintiff, who brought an 

 action for damages for breach of contract. It was held by the 

 Court of Appeal that the action was maintainable, and that 

 the plaintiff was entitled to substantial damages, for the 

 defendant, having agreed to employ the plaintiff for five years, 

 did not fulfil that agreement unless he sent him a reasonable 

 amount of samples to enable him to earn his commission ; and 

 that the defendant was not excused from fulfilling his agreement 

 by the destruction of his manufactory by fire. 



The question whether an employer is bound to provide work 

 for one who is employed at a fixed salary does not appear to 

 have been decided. 



8. Illness. The fact that a servant becomes incapacitated 

 by illness does not determine the contract, nor will it justify 

 dismissal without regular notice (R. v. Wintersett, 1783, Cald. 

 298). Nor does the illness of a servant necessarily entitle his 

 employer to dismiss him then and there. Where, however, he 

 becomes struck with disease so that he can never be expected 

 to return to his work, it has been held that this is a sufficient 

 justification for dismissal (Cuckson v. Stones, 1858, 1 E.&E. 

 248). If the illness is not of such a nature as to justify an 

 employer in thinking that the servant will not be able to work 

 again, dismissal may not be justified. So, in another case 

 (Storey v. Fulham Steel Works, 1907, 23 T. L. R. 306), the 

 plaintiff was engaged in 1903 to act for five years as works 

 manager. The agreement contained no provision for the 

 method by which the service was to be determined. In 1905 

 he became ill, and remained away from work down to 

 January, 1906, when he was told that he must have complete rest. 

 The employers rescinded the agreement in April, 1906, but in 

 May of the same year the plaintiff was declared fit for work. 

 In an action by him for breach of contract it was held that he 

 was entitled to damages, inasmuch as the circumstances were 

 not such as to justify the defendants in thinking that he 





