PLANS, DEAWINGS, AND DESIGNS 127 



not entitled to recover, as there was no understanding on 

 the part of the defendant to dispose of the land for building 

 purposes only ; and the land not having been in fact so 

 disposed of, the plaintiff was not according to the contract to 

 be remunerated (Mofatt v. Laurie, 1855, 15 C. B. 583). ^ (For 

 a case in which an architect was deprived of his fees owing to 

 his employment not being under seal, see Hunt v. Wimbledon 

 Local Board, 1878, L. K. 4 C. P. D. 48, noted, Chap. V., 27 

 (b), ante.) 



To prevent any dispute arising as to payment for plans, 

 etc., in cases where the work is not carried through, the 

 engineer should insist on the insertion in the agreement of 

 some such clause as this : "If the employer abandon the 

 intention of executing the building, the said engineer shall be 

 entitled to a sum to be fixed beforehand, and to the return 

 of his plans, drawings, and specifications." (Compare Form 

 III., Cls. 8 and 9, post, which make special provision for part 

 payment in case the work is not proceeded with.) 



16. Property in plans and drawings. Attempts have 

 sometimes been made to establish it as a principle that the 

 architect or engineer is entitled to retain plans and drawings 

 which he has prepared. That there is no such rule of law 

 was made plain in Gibbon v. Pease, 1905, 1 K. B. 810 (follow- 

 ing the older case of Ebdy v. M'Gowan, Times, Nov. 17, 1870). 

 In the case of Gibbon v. Pease, defendant, an architect, was 

 employed as such by the plaintiff to carry out certain 

 alterations to a house. He prepared plans and specifications 

 and superintended the work, which was eventually completed. 

 The plaintiff, having paid the defendant his agreed fee, 

 claimed to have the original plans and specifications delivered 

 up to him. The defendant declined to surrender them, 

 alleging that there was a custom to the effect that he was 

 entitled to retain them in the circumstances. The Court of 

 Appeal, before whom the case eventually came, decided that 

 there was no such custom. The Master of the Bolls, in giving 

 judgment, said : " It was held by the Court of Exchequer (in 

 Ebdy v. M'Gowan, supra) that such a custom, even if it were 

 proved, would be unreasonable, and that the building-owner 

 need not pay for plans unless he obtained them. ... In 

 my opinion the contract in this case resulted in the making of 

 plans the property in which passed to the building-owner 



