EMPLOYMENT OF AN ENGINEER 35 



on a single occasion in reference to some small matter, it is 

 conceived that he could recover his remuneration without 

 producing a contract under seal. But if he were to be 

 employed by them at a salary for a term of years, a sealed 

 document would be necessary. It is to be observed, however, 

 that although a corporation are entitled to rely on the absence 

 of a seal in order to resist a legitimate claim, they are not 

 bound to do so. Thus, in an old case, the Norwich Corporation 

 passed a resolution to pay certain sums, each exceeding 50/., 

 to contractors, in respect of which there was no sealed 

 contract. This was held not to be a misapplication of the 

 funds (B. v. Norwich Corporation, 1882, 30 W. E. 752). It is 

 to be remembered that if the contract is not sealed, this fact 

 may be set up by the other party as a defence to a claim 

 by the corporation (Wandsworth District Board v. Heaver, 

 1885, 2 T. L. E. 130). 



(b) Urban authorities. Engineers who contract with town 

 councils in municipal boroughs, or with district councils in 

 urban districts, should always make sure of having the contract 

 reduced into writing and sealed ; for it is provided by the 

 Public Health Act, 1875, s. 174 (1), that every contract made 

 by an urban authority, whereof the value or amount exceeds 

 .50, shall be in writing and sealed with the common seal of 

 such authority. It has been decided that this section applies 

 not merely to an executory contract (i.e., a contract about 

 to be performed), but to a contract of which the urban 

 authority has had the full benefit and enjoyment (Young 

 v. Royal Leamington Spa Corporation, 1883, L. E. 8 

 A. C. 517). In one case the surveyor to a local board 

 was employed under verbal directions to prepare plans for 

 offices. It was held that, as the contract was not under seal, 

 the surveyor could recover nothing for his plans (Hunt v. 

 Wimbledon Local Board, 1878, L. E. 4 C. P. D. 48). This 

 was a case of particular hardship, because the plans in 

 question were partially used. 



The reader will have noticed that the necessity for sealing 

 only arises "where the value or amount exceeds JG50." 

 Where an engineer is employed, the value may not be known 

 to the parties. Thus if he is employed at so much a day for 

 an indefinite period, it is conceived that the necessity for 

 sealing would not arise on this ground alone (see Eaton v. 

 Basker, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 529). 



D2 



