66 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



4. The parties. The parties to a contract are usually 

 described with care at the commencement of the document. 

 The person for whom the work is to be done is described as 

 the "employer," or "building-owner," as the case may be 

 (the term " employer " being generally used throughout this 

 work), and the party doing the work is generally described as 

 "the contractor." Where the engineer is frequently referred 

 to in the contract, it is often convenient to secure the insertion 

 of a clause providing that " the engineer shall mean Mr. A. B'. 

 or other the engineer for the time being, or from time to time 

 duly authorised and appointed in writing by the employers 

 to superintend the construction and erection of the works the 

 subject of the contract." (See, e.g., Form IIA., Cl. 1, post.) 



5. Disabilities of parties. It is necessary to point out that 

 a member of Parliament is prohibited by statute (22 Geo. 3, 

 c. 45 ; 41 Geo. 3, c. 52) from being interested otherwise than 

 as a member of an incorporated trading company in contracts 

 for the public service. Other cases of disability to contract 

 exist, but it is not necessary to deal with them in this work. 



6. Authority of persons contracting. It is sometimes 

 necessary to consider the question whether the parties 

 entering into the contract are competent to do so. In the 

 case of a company, for instance, it may be necessary to 

 inquire whether the proper formalities have been complied 

 with ; whether, for instance, the company has power to enter 

 into the contract at all. Thus a company may only contract 

 for such objects as are within the purposes of its memorandum 

 of association. In one case (Aslibury Carriage Co. v. Riche, 

 1875, L. R. 7 H. L. 653) the plaintiff company was formed 

 for the purpose of carrying on the business of mechanical 

 engineers and other purposes incidental thereto. It entered 

 into a contract with the defendant for the construction of a 

 railway by the defendant. It was held that the company was 

 not bound by the contract as being ultra vires. Again, it is 

 dangerous to enter into a contract with directors or other 

 officials without first ascertaining that they are vested with 

 the proper authority. In Pierce v. Jersey Waterworks Co., 

 1870, L. E. 5 Ex. 209, a company was formed with the object, 

 as described in the memorandum of association, of making a 

 waterworks in Jersey. By the articles of association it was 



