114 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



loss occasioned to them in attempting to use caissons, and 

 contended that the corporation had warranted, although not 

 expressly, that the work could be done inexpensively by the 

 use of caissons according to the specification. The House of 

 Lords held that no warranty could be implied. The following 

 passage from the judgment of Lord Chelmsford has become 

 historic. He said : " There can be no doubt that the plaintiff, 

 in the exercise of common prudence, before he made his 

 tender, ought to have informed himself of all the particulars 

 connected with the work, and especially as to the practicability 

 of executing every part of the work contained in the specifica- 

 tion according to the specified terms and conditions. It is 

 said that it would be very inconvenient to require an intended 

 contractor to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the 

 specification, as it would be necessary upon each occasion for 

 him to have an engineer by his side. . . . But if the con- 

 tractor ought prudently and properly to have full information 

 of the nature of the work he is preparing to undertake, and 

 the advice of a skilful person is necessary to enable him to 

 understand the specification, is it any reason for not employ- 

 ing such a person that it would add to the expense of the 

 contractor before making his tender ? It is also said that it is 

 the usage of contractors to rely on the specification and not to 

 examine it particularly for themselves ; if so it is an usage of 

 blind confidence of the most unreasonable description." 



The following cases may also be referred to in this connection : 

 Williams v. Fitzmaurice, 1858, 3 H. & N. 844 ; Scrivener v. 

 Pask, 1865, 18 C. B. N. S. 785 (where, owing to inaccurate 

 quantities, a builder expended much more than he anticipated) ; 

 Sharpe v. San Paulo Railway, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 597 (where con- 

 tractors for the building of a railway found themselves liable 

 to excavate 2,000,000 cubic yards of earth in excess of what 

 they had anticipated) ; and Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co. v. 

 M'Elroy, 1878, 3 A. C. 1040. In the latter case, contractors 

 had undertaken to erect certain iron buildings in accordance 

 with a specification. The girders proved too thin and liable 

 to twist. It was held that they were not entitled to charge as 

 an extra the cost of providing stronger girders. (See further, 

 as to work superior to specification, Chap. VI., 23, 31.) 



The principle of the decided cases may be stated by saying 

 that it is no defence to an action for damages for faulty con- 

 struction or bad foundations that the works so far as they 



