78 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



contracted with the agent of an absent shipowner to effect 

 certain specified repairs to a ship (all confined to damage 

 by stranding), and instead of doing the work as stipulated 

 alleged that they had on the agent's authority, done the 

 equivalent thereto or better, and in the same contract stipu- 

 lated that they should be paid for repairs due to deterioration 

 at scheduled prices stated by them. It was held that it 

 appearing that as the agent's authority to their knowledge 

 was limited to the specified repairs, they could not recover on 

 the contract, which was an entire one, and in its entirety had 

 never been performed. It was further held that the mere 

 fact of the shipowner having taken the ship as repaired did 

 not thereby ratify the contract. In that case the original 

 contract price was 5,995 10s., which the plaintiffs sought to 

 increase to 15,567 8s. 9d. by a claim for work not included 

 in the contract and for other repairs. 



In Appleby v. Myers, 1866, 2 C. P. 651, the plaintiffs con- 

 tracted with the defendant to erect upon premises in his 

 possession a steam-engine and machinery, the works being by 

 the contract divided into ten different parts, and separate 

 prices fixed upon each part, no time being fixed for pay- 

 ment. All the parts of the work were far advanced towards 

 completion, and some of them were so nearly finished that 

 the defendant had used them for the purpose of his business ; 

 but no one of them was absolutely complete, though a con- 

 siderable portion of the necessary materials for that purpose 

 were upon the building. At this time the whole premises, 

 with the machinery and materials, were destroyed by an acci- 

 dental fire. The plaintiffs sued to recover either the whole 

 price or the proper value of the work which had been done. 

 It was held that by reason of the fire, both parties were 

 excused from the further performance of the contract but 

 that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue in respect of those 

 portions of the work which had been completed, whether the 

 materials used had become the property of the defendant or 

 not. Lord Blackburn said : " The plaintiffs having contracted 

 to do an entire work for a specific sum, can recover nothing 

 unless the work be done, or it can be shown that it was the 

 defendant's fault that the work was incomplete, or that there 

 is something to justify the conclusion that the parties have 

 entered into a fresh contract." (As to a fresh contract, see 

 30, post.) 



