ENGINEERING CONTRACTS DEALT WITH 77 



made. It will be convenient to deal with and illustrate these 

 three forms of contract separately. 



22. Failure to complete work on a lump-sum contract. 

 Where a contract to build for a lump sum is abandoned after 

 part execution, the builder cannot recover as upon a quantum 

 meruit in respect of the part executed, as was held in a case 

 where the employer himself completed the building (Sumpter 

 v. Hedges, 1898, 1 Q. B. 673). So, in the case of a contract to 

 carry out an engineering work for a lump sum it will be no 

 answer for the contractor, who has not completed, to allege 

 that the work as done will be worth so much to the employer. 

 He must carry out his contract to the letter. If he does not 

 do so he stands to lose, not only the contract price, but the 

 entire value of the materials used and the cost of work and 

 labour expended. 



23. Completion of a lump-sum contract. A lump-sum con- 

 tract cannot be said to be completed when that which is done 

 is really done in pursuance of a fresh contract. In Humphreys 

 v. Jones and Pickering, 1850, 5 Ex. 952, two persons entered 

 into a joint agreement with a railway company, to execute a 

 contract called the Morley Contract, for the construction of a 

 tunnel. After this agreement, one of the parties (A.) assigned 

 all his right and interest to the other (B.), and the latter agreed 

 to pay A. a given sum " on completion of the said contract." 

 After this agreement had been entered into between A. and B., 

 it became necessary to alter the levels of the line, and B., by 

 agreement with the company, abandoned the contract, and 

 another was entered into between the company and other 

 persons, under which the tunnel at the altered level was com- 

 pleted. It was held that A. could not on the completion of the 

 substituted contract maintain an action against B. for the 

 payment of the sum stipulated by his agreement with A. 

 " We might work injustice," said the Court, " to the other side 

 by holding that the original contract is completed by the com- 

 pletion of the one which has been substituted in its place " 

 (see also Newfoundland Government v. Newfoundland Railway, 

 1888, 13 A. C. 199). For a case in which the non-completion 

 of a lump sum or entire contract was held to be justifiable 

 owing to the non-delivery of plans, see Chap. XI., 13, post. 



In Forman d Co. v. Liddesdale, 1900, A. C. 190, the plaintiffs 



