122 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



the agent of the employer, but he has no authority to warrant 

 that the plans, etc., are correct. If the contractor assumes 

 that they are correct, and omits to make the necessary 

 inquiries and measurements for himself, he may incur a 

 serious liability (Thorn v. Mayor of London, 1876, 1 A. C. 120, 

 the facts of which are set out in Chap. X., 3, ante), and it is 

 for this reason that a clause is usually inserted pointing out 

 that the accuracy of plans, etc., is not warranted (see e.g. 

 Form 1, Cl. 2, post). If the engineer has power to furnish 

 detailed or working drawings during the progress of the 

 works, he may supplement the original drawings by giving 

 further details, but he must not alter the original design 

 (R. v.Peto, 1826, 1 Y. & J. 37). The question of warranty 

 must, however, be re-considered if fraud is alleged. (See 

 Pearson v. Dublin Corporation, 1907, A. C. 857, ante, 

 Chap. X., 9.) 



6. Preliminary plans and sketches. It has been decided 

 that an architect is not entitled to be paid anything for pre- 

 liminary plans and drawings, inasmuch as these are in the 

 nature of mere estimates which will lead up to a possible 

 contract (Moffatt v. Laurie, 1855, 24 L. J. C. P. 56). In that 

 case the judge said: "It is of every-day occurrence for 

 architects to send in plans for public buildings, taking the 

 chance of being paid for their labour, or not, as they may be 

 adopted or rejected." 



7. Effect of approval of plans, etc., by employer. Where 

 an engineer is employed to prepare plans and specifications, 

 it may be taken that the arrangement between him and the 

 employer embodies an implied term that the employer shall 

 approve the drawings. But what is the effect of approval by 

 the employer? Does it estop him from preferring a charge 

 of negligence against the engineer in case the design prove 

 faulty, or the drawing inaccurate? In this connection it is 

 material to notice that when a person undertakes and is 

 employed to perform a work of skill and labour, and fails 

 therein, so that his employer derives no benefit from the 

 work, that person is nofc entitled to recover his demand, as 

 the employer buys both his labour and his judgment, and he 

 ought not to undertake the work if he does not know whether 

 he can succeed or not (Duncan v. Blundell, 1820, 3 Stark. 6). 



