118 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



for the foundations of a bridge involved an additional expense 

 of 1,600. It was held that he could not recover his fees. 

 The judge said : " If a surveyor delivers an estimate greatly 

 below the sum at which a work can be done, and thereby 

 induces a private person to undertake what he would not 

 otherwise do, then I think he is not entitled to recover." Not 

 only might an engineer lose his fees in such a case, but he 

 might be liable to an action for damages at the suit of his 

 employer. (See further as to negligence on the part of an 

 engineer, Chap. V., 7, ante.) 



(For examples of the grave consequence which may follow 

 from verbal errors in a specification that forms part of a con- 

 tract, see Chap. VI., 19, and cases there cited.) 



10. Fraud in relation to a specification. We have seen that, 

 as a general rule, a specification does not amount to a war- 

 ranty. The contractor enters upon the work at his own risk. 

 But if the specification or the plans contain or involve state- 

 ments of fact which are false to the knowledge of the employer, 

 the question of fraud enters into the matter, and the contractor 

 may be in a position to claim relief. In this connection it 

 should be mentioned that a statement made by a person reck- 

 lessly and without caring whether it be true or false, is deemed 

 fraudulent in the eye of the law. 



The case of Pearson v. Dublin Corporation, 1907, A. C. 357, 

 which was recently decided in the House of Lords, affords an 

 illustration of this proposition. In a contract to execute 

 certain sewage works, Messrs. Pearson covenanted to do the 

 works described in the drawings, specifications, etc., and the 

 defendants covenanted to pay for the works on the receipt of 

 the certificate in writing of their engineer as provided by the 

 conditions. The specification provided, inter alia, that the 

 plaintiffs must verify all representations, and not rely upon 

 their accuracy. The works in question involved the trans- 

 formation of an old harbour in the Liffey into a sewerage 

 tank. On completion the plaintiffs claimed 36,574 from the 

 defendants on the grounds first, that the plans showed a 

 certain existing wall extending some nine feet below the 

 ordnance datum line, which could be utilised for the purposes 

 of the works ; that this wall did not exist, and that conse- 

 quently the plans for the works had been altered, and the 

 plaintiffs, at the direction of the engineer, had completed the 



