PLANS, DKAWINGS, AND DESIGNS 123 



It would seem to follow from this that where the employer 

 relies on the engineer to advise him as to the feasibility of 

 plans, etc., the engineer cannot shield himself behind the fact 

 that the employer has approved the plans. The principle is 

 illustrated by the case of Smith v. Barton, 1886, 15 L. T. 294, 

 where an agent for the purchase of a public-house was held 

 liable in damages to his employer for negligently conducting 

 the purchase, although he had advised his employer to go 

 and examine the business for himself and the employer did so. 

 (See this subject discussed under the head of negligence, 

 Chap. V., 4, ante.) 



8. Plans for competition. Where engineers and others are 

 asked to send in plans for a competition, it has been held that 

 those who advertise for the plans are not entitled to use them 

 if the competition is not proceeded with. If the plans are 

 used they must be paid for (Landless v. Wilson, 1880, 8 Ct. of 

 Sess. Gas. 289). In that case an architect was employed to 

 prepare plans for the erection of certain buildings which were 

 not proceeded with. The owner, however, made some use of 

 the plans, and the architect sued him for his fees. The owner 

 pleaded in defence that the plans had been drawn on the 

 footing of there being a competition. The sheriff gave judg- 

 ment for the plaintiff. On appeal the Court of Session held 

 that it lay on the owner to prove that the architect's employ- 

 ment was gratuitous, which he had failed to do, and they 

 accordingly affirmed the decision of the sheriff. 



In Ward v. Lowndes, 1859, 28 L. J. Q. B. 265, certain com- 

 missioners published an advertisement offering a premium of 

 20 to the architect who should produce the best plan for a 

 covered market-house and hotel, provided that the person 

 furnishing the selected plan should not afterwards be 

 employed as architect for the said buildings. The plain- 

 tiffs produced a plan which they alleged was the best and 

 most approved for the covered markets, but the ,20 was not 

 paid. They were awarded the sum of 20 by a jury, but it 

 was held that the verdict could not stand. 



9. Drawings part of the contract. The fact that the 

 drawings are usually made part of the contract makes it 

 essential for the contractor to pay close attention to them. 

 Any deviation may involve him in a claim for damages for 



