EMPLOYMENT OF AN ENGINEEK 25 



the salary for the remainder of the fixed period. Before the 

 period expired the partnership was dissolved, two members 

 leaving the firm. The plaintiff had no notice to quit ; but on 

 hearing of the dissolution he refused the offer of the new firm 

 to continue his employment on the old terms. It was held 

 that there was a breach of agreement in respect of which the 

 plaintiff was entitled to recover, but that the damages must 

 be nominal only, as by reason of the offer of the new firm he 

 need not have suffered any damage at all (Brace v. Colder, 

 1895, 2 Q. B t 253). 



14. Gratuitous service. Service however long creates no 

 claim for remuneration without a bargain for it, either express 

 or implied from circumstances showing an understanding on 

 both sides that there shall be payment (Reeve v. Reeve, 

 IF. & F. 280). So, where a man performed gratuitous 

 services for another, who gave him a promissory note with 

 an understanding that he would accept it not only as a gift for 

 what was past, but as a remuneration for future services to be 

 rendered so long as he should require them, it was held that, 

 as there was no contract binding the employee to perform 

 future services, there was no consideration for the promissory 

 note (Hulse v. Hulse, 17 C. B. 711). But where a man agreed 

 to enter into service as a weekly manager to commence from 

 a certain day, leaving the amount of payment he was to receive 

 entirely to the employer, it was held that he was entitled to 

 recover reasonable remuneration for his services (Bryant v. 

 Flight, 5 M. & W. 114). 



(But compare the position of an engineer employed as a 

 professional man. See Chap. II., 1, supra.) 



15, Secret commissions. It is necessary to point out that, 

 apart altogether from the provisions of the Act which makes 

 it a criminal offence to take or offer a secret commission, a 

 servant or agent who acts in this way commits a breach of 

 duty to his employers. The receipt of a secret commission 

 may justify an employer in dismissing his servant without 

 notice. So in Boston Deep Sea Fishing Co. v. Ansell, 

 1888, 39 Ch. D. 339, the defendant sued (by counter-claim) 

 for wrongful dismissal. At the trial it was shown that he 

 had received certain commissions from a firm of shipbuilders 

 on the price of vessels built for his employers. This was only 



