ENGINEEKING CONTRACTS DEALT WITH 69 



9. Consideration. There must be consideration for every 

 contract which is not under seal (C kitty on Contracts, 14th 

 Ed., p. 8), the consideration need not be adequate ; that is a 

 matter with which the Court will not concern itself. So long 

 as the consideration has some value it will suffice. A mere 

 voluntary courtesy is not a good consideration for a promise. 

 So if a contractor, out of courtesy to A., were to build a wall on 

 A.'s land, A. would not be bound to pay him therefor. The 

 consideration, however, must not be illegal. Thus if it were 

 part of the object of the contract to stifle a criminal prosecution, 

 it could not be enforced. In Windhill Local Board of Health v. 

 Vint, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 351, the plaintiffs, who were a 

 local board, prosecuted the defendants for interfering with 

 and obstructing a road. At the trial of the indictment, 

 an agreement for compromise was made whereby the defendants 

 covenanted to restore the road, which they had broken up, for 

 seven years, and the board of health covenanted that, in con- 

 sideration of this, they would consent to a verdict of "not 

 guilty." Subsequently the defendants failed to restore the 

 road, and the plaintiffs, relying on the agreement, brought 

 this action claiming specific performance and damages. It 

 was held that as the contract in question was based on an 

 illegal consideration it could not be enforced, and that there- 

 fore the action could not be maintained. 



10. Construction of a contract. It is for the Court to interpret 

 the various phrases and expressions used in a contract. For this 

 reason it is advisable for an engineer who is drawing a specifica- 

 tion which shall form part of a contract, to use language which is 

 as free as possible from technicality. Technical phrases must of 

 course be used occasionally, but it is as well to select those 

 which have a well-known and definite meaning. The common 

 principle of construction is that an agreement ought to receive 

 that construction which its language will admit, and will best 

 effectuate the intention of the parties, and that greater regard is 

 to be had to the clear intent of the parties than to any particular 

 word which they may have used in the expression of their 

 intent (Ford v. Beech, 1848, 11 Q. B. 852, 866). 



In general, the popular meaning of words will be adopted, 

 unless by the known usage of a trade the particular word has 

 acquired a special sense. The whole of a contract is to be 

 looked at, so that words may be construed by the context. 



