74 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEKS 



which alone the agreement can be operative (Stirling v. 

 Maitland, 1864, 5 B. & S. 840). 



In Barr v. Dumferline Railway, 1855, 17 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (2nd 

 Ser.) (Dunlop), 582, the defendant company employed the 

 plaintiff, a contractor, to erect part of their line, in accordance 

 with a contract which specified the rates at which the work 

 should be executed, and named an arbitrator for the settlement 

 of all disputes. When the contractors had executed part of 

 the work, this company obtained an Act of Parliament for the 

 deviation of the line, whereupon the contractors executed the 

 deviations in accordance with the plans furnished to them, and 

 charged for the whole work the rate specified in the original 

 contract. It was held that the arbitration clause in the 

 original contract remained effectual in reference to the making 

 of the deviation. In other words it was an implied term of 

 the contract between the parties. 



The case of Knight v. Gravesend Waterworks Co.) 1857, 27 

 L. J. Ex. 73, illustrates the way in which a covenant to do 

 something may be implied from the terms of the contract. It 

 appeared that the plaintiff agreed to construct for the defend- 

 ants a well and other works mentioned in a specification ; and 

 to provide all engines, pumps, etc., and all other implements 

 and things mentioned in it as required to be provided by the 

 person contracting to perform the work. The specification 

 which was under the seal of the defendant company, contained 

 this clause : " The contractor will be required to sink the well 

 to a depth of 120 feet, after which the company will under- 

 take the erection of a permanent steam-engine, and permit 

 the pumping to be performed by it." It was held that this 

 amounted to an implied covenant on the part of the water- 

 company to erect the permanent steam-engine. Pollock, C. B., 

 in giving judgment said: "The question, after all, is this 

 from everything that has occurred between the parties, which 

 can be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining whether 

 there is a covenant, or what is the meaning of a covenant, 

 What is the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the entire 

 matter ? It appears to me that the undertaking by the water- 

 company amounts to an implied covenant to undertake to 

 erect the permanent steam-engine and to permit the pumping 

 to be performed by it." (See also Jackson v. Eastbourne 

 Local Board, 1886, 2 H. B. C. p. 671.) 



It is an implied condition of every contract for works that 



