126 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



technical decision ; but the substance of the matter was that 

 there had been a rise in the price of iron, which made it more 

 difficult for the plaintiff to fulfil his contract. 



14. Payment for plans where estimates exceeded. Where an 

 architect's plans are rejected after acceptance, on the ground 

 that the work cannot be done for the amount of the estimate, 

 it is for the jury to say whether it is an express or implied 

 condition of the contract that the estimates shall be reasonably 

 near the actual cost (Nelson v. Spooner, 1861, 2 F. & F. 613). 

 In another case (Moneypenny v. Hartland, 1828, 2 C. & P. 

 378), an engineer had prepared estimates for the building of a 

 bridge and approaches thereto. Owing to his relying on the 

 work of another man, he did not take means to ascertain for 

 himself the character of the soil. In consequence of this the 

 estimates were greatly exceeded, and the Court held that he 

 was not entitled to recover his fees. Best, C. J., 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." 



15. Payment for plans dependent on contingency. Payment 

 for plans is sometimes made to depend on an event which 

 may or may not happen. The following case is a good 

 example of how undesirable it is from the engineer's point of 

 view to enter into any such agreement. It appeared that 

 the plaintiff, an architect, agreed to lay out certain land of the 

 defendant for building purposes, and to make all requisite 

 plans on the terms that he should make no charge for his 

 services, but that in the event of the land being disposed of 

 for building purposes, the plaintiff should be appointed the 

 architect on behalf of the defendant. Alternative provision 

 was made for the payment of the plaintiff in case the land was 

 laid out for building and he was not appointed architect, and 

 for payment for his time and trouble in making the prepara- 

 tions in case the defendant or his executors should dispense 

 with his services. The land was not disposed of for building 

 purposes, and after the defendant's death, his executors 

 dispensed with the plaintiff's services without paying him any 

 compensation. He thereupon brought an action claiming in 

 respect of his time and trouble. It was held that he was 



