36 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



Time for fixing seal. The seal may be affixed at any time so 

 long as the contract is still open. In a case where an engineer 

 and the surveyor of a local board sued the board for their 

 charges for services in drawing out plans for a scheme of 

 drainage, the agreement was contained in a letter. No seal 

 was attached until the following year, when the board, after 

 the work had been nearly completed, ratified the agreement 

 by a document under seal. The Court held that the ratifica- 

 tion was good, inasmuch as the contractor's promise to complete 

 the work was a sufficient consideration for the ratification 

 (Meltiu v. Shirley Local Board, 1885, L. E. 14 Q. B. D. 911). 



Penalty to be prescribed. There is another formality which 

 must be observed when contracting with a municipal authority 

 or an urban district council. The contract must specify the 

 pecuniary penalty to be paid in case the terms of the contract 

 are not duly performed (Public Health Act, 1875, s. 174 (3)). 

 Where a contract has been inadvertently entered into without 

 a penalty being prescribed, the Local Government Board may, 

 it seems, sanction payments under it, and order the execution 

 of a fresh contract with a proper penalty clause (British Insu- 

 lated Wire Co. v. Prescot Urban District Council, 1895, 11 

 T. L. E. 557, 595). 



Engineer not to be interested in contracts. An engineer em- 

 ployed by a local authority must avoid anything like dealing 

 with contractors who are working for the board. Thus it is 

 provided that officers or servants employed by a local authority 

 must not in any wise be concerned or interested in any 

 bargain or contract made with such authority for any of the 

 purposes of the Public Health Act (Public Health Act, 1875, 

 s. 193). Failure to observe this rule, or the receipt of any fee 

 or reward other than his proper salary, wages and allowances, 

 may involve a penalty of 50, and incapacity for holding any 

 office or employment under the Act (ib.). In one case (Melliss 

 v. Shirley Local Board, 1885, L. E. 14 Q. B. D. 911) a firm of 

 engineers, one of the partners in which was the surveyor of a 

 local board, sued the board for their charges for services in 

 drawing out plans for a scheme of drainage. It was contended 

 that, as the surveyor was an officer of the board, he could not 

 contract with the board, and it being a joint contract, it was 

 illegal as to the engineer also. The Court held that the 

 contract was void. In another case (Whiteley v. Barley, 1888, 

 21 Q. B. D. 154) a surveyor to the local authority, by a provision 



