SPECIFICATIONS 115 



were carried out, were constructed in accordance with the 

 specifications. So in Broivn v. Laurie, 1851, 1 L. C. E. 343, a 

 builder brought an action for a balance due upon a contract 

 for the excavation, and masons' and bricklayers' work, of 

 certain houses. To this it was replied that as the houses were 

 set upon insufficient foundation, the builder had not carried 

 out his contract. It was held that the builder was liable for 

 the defects of the soil, and was bound to take usual and proper 

 means for ascertaining the nature of the ground and putting 

 in proper foundations. 



In view of the foregoing principles, and of the fact that many 

 contractors do not examine foundations, etc., for themselves, 

 it is obvious that the engineer who desires to avoid future 

 trouble between his employer and the contractor must observe 

 the greatest care in drawing specifications. In its ultimate 

 result, the error caused by an omission is nearly as important 

 as that caused by an inaccurate table of quantities or an under- 

 estimate of the strength of a particular type of girder. 



4. Specification for " a sound machine." A contract to 

 erect a sound machine will not be properly executed by the 

 mere close adherence to the specification and plans. The con- 

 tractor must satisfy himself that if the specification is complied 

 with the machine will be sound. 



In Hydraulic Co. v. Spencer, 1886, 2 T. L. K. 554, the 

 defendant contracted to cast certain cylinders according to 

 specification and plans, the cylinders to stand a pressure of 

 twenty-four hundredweights to the square inch. It turned 

 out that if the cylinders were cast according to the specifica- 

 tion there would be an unavoidable defect. It was held that 

 the defendant had contracted to supply sound cylinders, and 

 that as he had not done so, although he had adhered to the 

 plans, he was liable in damages. Lord Esher said : " The 

 cylinders were cracked, but they were to be made according to 

 a pattern, and the defence was that they could not be so made 

 without being cracked. No doubt if that were all there would 

 be a defence. But it is contended that the manufacturers had 

 contracted for something more, and on the letters it appeared 

 that they had undertaken to make sound cylinders. They 

 thought they could do so working according to the pattern ; 

 they found they could not, and so they were liable for 

 damages." 



i2 



