102 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



An agreement not to tender in competition appears to extend 

 to work other than that which may be within the immediate 

 contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract. So, 

 in another case, A. and B. agreed not to tender in competition 

 with each other for gas-tar. In answer to an advertisement, 

 and acting upon his agreement with B., A. sent in a merely 

 nominal tender, with the result that B. got the contract. 

 Later, fresh advertisements were issued, and a tender by B. 

 was rejected, whereupon A., without communicating with B., 

 sent in a tender on his own account. It was decided that the 

 agreement between them was still pending, and that A. was 

 liable for the breach of it (Metcalf v. Bouck, 1871, 25 L. T. 

 539). 



16. Tenders to local authorities. Urban authorities are 

 compelled by law to offer certain contracts for public tender. 

 Thus it is provided by Sec. 174 (4) of the Public Health Act, 

 1875, that before any contract of the value or amount of 100 

 or upwards is entered into by an urban authority, ten days' 

 public notice at the least shall be given, expressing the nature 

 and purpose thereof, and inviting tenders for the execution of 

 the same, and such authority shall require and take sufficient 

 security for the due performance of the same. Interesting 

 questions have arisen in practice as to the legal effect of this 

 provision. Thus in one instance (see the Electrical Review, 

 March 2, 1906) a certain municipal council, having resolved to 

 extend its electricity plant, sent out to a number of electrical 

 manufacturers a specification in which a special type of engine 

 (one firm's exclusive speciality) was asked for, the type of 

 generator being left open. The matter was not advertised. 

 A firm of engine-builders not making the type specified by the 

 engineer obtained permission to tender, but, contrary to 

 specification, they quoted for their own type of engine. Their 

 price was lowest, but they were ruled out as having failed to 

 comply with specification. 



The following points arise : (1) Should the matter have 

 been settled without the contract being publicly advertised ? 

 (2) Was the engineer acting within his rights in specifying a 

 particular type of engine a fact which conceivably might 

 allow of the price being increased because of the " monopoly" 

 given to that favoured type ? It is a frequent practice for 

 dynamo-builders to submit alternative tenders for their 



