1\ 



124 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEKS 



breach of contract, and he would certainly not be entitled to 

 recover anything from the building-owner in respect of such 

 deviation ; for if a builder undertakes a work of specified 

 dimensions and with specified materials, and deviates from 

 the specification, he cannot recover on a quantum valebat for 

 the work, labour, and materials (Ellis v. Hamlen, 1810, 

 3 Taunt. 52). In the case of any discrepancy between plans 

 and specifications, the contract usually provides that the 

 specification shall prevail. (See Form IIA., 01. 11 (a), post.) 



10. Deviation from plans. The mere fact that unforeseen 

 difficulties crop up in the progress of works will not justify a 

 deviation from the plans in order to meet those difficulties ; 

 and if a contractor undertakes to erect a building according to 

 plans and a specification, under the supervision of an architect, 

 the architect cannot change the terms without special authority 

 (Cooper v. Langdon, 1841, 9 M. & W. 60). The same principle 

 would apply to the case of an engineer. 



11. Approval of plans by local authority. Local authorities 

 have power, notably under Sec. 157 of the Public Health Act, 

 1875, to make by-laws as to the deposit of plans by persons 

 intending to lay out streets or to construct buildings. No action 

 lies against a local authority for maliciously refusing to approve 

 of plans submitted to them for the drainage of a building in 

 their district (Davis v. Mayor, etc., of Bromley, 1907, 24 

 T. L. K. 11). 



12. Compliance with statutes. The engineer ought to take 

 steps to ascertain that the work upon which he is about to 

 embark involves no breach of any statute. Thus if his works 

 are within the county of London, he must be satisfied that he 

 will not infringe the provisions of the London Building Acts. 

 These matters often have to be taken into account before the 

 plans are prepared. There have been several cases in which 

 difficulties have arisen owing to statutes not having been 

 complied with. In one case the plaintiff agreed to grant a 

 lease for a term of years of certain premises to the defendant 

 upon the terms that the defendant should erect thereon a 

 house according to plans to be approved by the plaintiff, and 

 according to any Acts of Parliament in force for the regulation 

 of buildings, etc. The house projected three feet beyond that 



