132 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



4. Extras where contract is under seal, Where the con- 

 tract is under seal as where, for instance, a contractor agrees 

 to do work for a corporation or other local authority the 

 original contract cannot be varied or altered except by a new 

 contract under seal. Consequently if the contractor, at the 

 verbal request of the local authority or one of their officers, 

 does some extra work, he cannot recover anything in 

 respect of it. But where such a contract contains the usual 

 clause allowing extras to be ordered by the engineer, his 

 order need not be under seal. In Williams v. Barmouth 

 Urban Council, 1897, 77 L. T. 383, where the plaintiff con- 

 tracted to do certain sewerage works for the defendant council, 

 there was the usual power for the engineer, who had control 

 and supervision of the works, to vary, alter, enlarge, or 

 diminish any of them. It was held that all variations coming 

 within the terms of the power conferred on the engineer could 

 be validly made without being under the common seal of the 

 urban authority. 



5. Authority of engineer as to extras. It is a general 

 rule that the engineer cannot order extras without authority. 

 In other words, the cost of extras done pursuant to an order 

 which the engineer has no authority to give, cannot be 

 recovered from the employer. For instance, in Cooper v. 

 Langdon, 1841, 9 M. & W. 60, a builder was sued for not 

 building a house in accordance with his contract. He pleaded 

 that he deviated from the drawings, etc., by the direction of 

 the architect. It was held that this was no answer to the 

 claim, as it was not proved that the architect had power, 

 under the terms of the contract, to bind the employer by 

 allowing deviations from the drawings. 



6. How extras may be authorised. Further, the engineer 

 must authorise extras in the proper manner. If an express 

 order or direction in writing is necessary (as, for instance, in 

 a contract framed according to Form IIA., Cl. 20 (a), post), 

 nothing less than an express order or direction will suffice 

 (Russell v. Sa da Bandeira, 1862, 13 C. B. N. S. 149). So, 

 a mere sketch made by an architect was held not to be a 

 sufficient written direction for extras (Myers v. Sari, 1860, 

 30 L. J. Q. B. 9). These cases will show that the engineer 

 who is called upon to allow for extras should exercise the 



