76 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



engineer of the local authority, who had employed the con- 

 tractor, allowed this error to pass unnoticed, and eventually 

 tried to force the contractor to do the work in question for 

 18s. by refusing to certify. Upon the matter coming before 

 him, the Official Eeferee held that it was too late to rectify, 

 and that the employers must pay the larger price. 



In another case (Ewing v. Hanbury, 1900, 16 T. L. R. 140) 

 the plaintiffs, who were boiler-makers, undertook to fashion 

 certain plates for the defendants. The plaintiffs were supplied 

 with a specification and then wrote to the defendants offering 

 to do the work " at the rate of 80s. per cwt." The defendants 

 answered by letter, referring to the plaintiffs' quotation of 80s. 

 per cwt. and accepting the offer. When the plaintiffs had 

 done the greater part of the work, the defendants found out 

 that they had made a mistake, as they never intended to pay 

 80s. a cwt., but 80s. a ton. They claimed to have the contract 

 rectified. It was held that as the defendants had accepted the 

 offer in terms, they were bound by the contract, which the 

 Court could not rectify. (For an example of the consequence 

 of a mistake in a tender, see Chap. VIII., 8, post.) 



20. Where relief will be granted for mistake. In Neill v. 

 Midland Ry. Co., 1869, 17 W. E. 871, the plaintiff had 

 agreed with the defendants to execute certain works for a 

 gross sum of 19,923 18s. lid. A schedule of quantities 

 which was appended to the contract, contained a number of 

 mistakes, which, it was alleged, were soon known to the agents 

 of the railway company after the contract was entered into. 

 In one case the amount of 5,086 yards of concrete at 5s. per 

 yard was stated to be 55 19s. 2d., instead of 1,271 10s. 

 Altogether the plaintiff had made mistakes against himself to 

 the tune of 1,881 Os. 2d. In the circumstances the Court 

 granted relief and rectified the contract. 



21. Completion of contract. A contract for works may 

 consist of one entire job for which the contractor is to be paid 

 a lump sum. In that case he cannot sue or recover the lump 

 sum until the work is complete. Where, however, the work is 

 severable into parts which are to be paid for separately, com- 

 pletion of one part may enable the contractor to sue for the 

 amount then due. Another form of contract provides for the 

 execution of a piece of work, no mention of a price being 



