ENGINEEKING CONTEACTS DEALT WITH 71 



should be used not in their ordinary, but in their popular 

 acceptation. This can only be attained by means of parol 

 evidence, to show what is the particular signification of the 

 words in the contract, as distinguished from their peculiar 

 acceptation." In that case it was held admissible to show, 

 that, by the usage of the building trade, " weekly accounts " 

 meant accounts of the day-work only, and did not extend to 

 extra work capable of being measured. 



(As to what conditions will be implied as to workmanship, 

 see 32, post.) 



12. Cases in which parol evidence has been admitted to explain 

 written contracts. In a work of this kind it would not be 

 possible to touch upon all the cases where written contracts 

 have been varied by parol evidence. It may be useful, 

 however, to refer to a few examples of cases in which it was 

 found necessary, and held to be lawful, to adduce parol 

 evidence. 



In one of these a contract for the construction of certain 

 steamships contained a clause to the effect that : " The following 

 specification is subject to plans which are to be submitted and 

 approved by the owners before the work is commenced, and 

 which shall in all cases of divergence be held to over-rule." 

 The plans showed the vessels with straight keels, but as 

 actually built the keels were " cambered " i.e., arched, so as to 

 curve inwards. The shipowners having brought an action for 

 damages for breach of contract in respect of the cambering of 

 the vessels, the defenders contended that the pursuers were 

 barred from basing their case on the cambering, inasmuch as 

 they had orally agreed to it while the vessels were in the course 

 of construction. It was held that the plans were part of the 

 contract, and that parol evidence to prove the alleged agree- 

 ment to deviate from the plans was inadmissible (Burrell v. 

 Russell, 1900, 2 F. (H. L.) 80). Lord Davey, in giving 

 judgment in that case, said : " If the wisdom of the rules of 

 law (common to England and Scotland) which says that a 

 contract in writing shall not be varied except by another 

 writing, required illustration, you would surely find it in this 

 case." 



In Symoncls v. Lloyd, 1859, 6 C. B. N. S. 691, the plaintiffs 

 contracted (in writing) to build for the defendant the front and 

 back walls of a house " for the sum of 3s. per superficial yard 



