PLANS, DRAWINGS, AND DESIGNS 125 



of the adjoining owner, who promptly complained to the 

 Board of Works. The Board of Works gave the defendant 

 notice that he must build in a line with the adjoining house, 

 whereupon the defendant refused to go on with the work. 

 The plaintiff brought an action to compel the defendant to 

 proceed to erect a house, when it was held that he was bound 

 to rebuild in conformity with the plan modified to meet 

 statutory requirements (Cubitt v. Smith, 1864, 11 L. T. 298). 



13. Delay in supplying plans. It is an implied term of 

 every contract for works that the employer shall deliver the 

 plans in time (see Chap. VI., 16). Where an architect or 

 engineer is guilty of delay in providing plans, this may excuse 

 the builder or contractor who is alleged to have delayed the 

 execution of the works. This is on the principle that one of 

 two contracting parties will be excused from the performance 

 of a contract, when he is prevented by the wrongful act of the 

 other party or his agent (Roberts v. Bury Commissioners, 

 1869, L. R. 5 C. P. 310). But there is apparently a duty cast 

 upon the builder or contractor to apply for plans ; otherwise 

 mere delay in supplying them will not avail him. So in a 

 case where the building-owner was to be at liberty to re-enter 

 in case of default by the builder, the builder sought to show 

 that he had been delayed some time waiting for plans. As it 

 did not appear that he had ever applied for the plans, the 

 Court held that this was no excuse for delay (Stevens v. Taylor, 

 1860, 2 F. & F. 419). 



In Kingdom v. Cox, 1848, 17 L. J. C. P. 155, the defendant 

 agreed to supply the plaintiff with 150 tons weight of iron 

 girders at a certain price per ton, and according to plans to be 

 furnished by the plaintiff. Plans were furnished within a 

 reasonable time from the date of the agreement, and at the 

 same time fourteen tons weight of girders were ordered. 

 Four months after the date of the agreement the fourteen tons 

 were demanded ; and other plans were furnished, orders being 

 given for sixty tons more girders. The defendant then 

 repudiated the contract. It was held that the contract was 

 entire ; and that as the plaintiff had not furnished plans for 

 the whole 150 tons within a reasonable time from the date of 

 the agreement, he could not recover for the non-delivery of 

 the fourteen tons for which plans had been delivered within a 

 reasonable time. This may appear to have been a somewhat 



