EXTEAS AND ALTEEATIONS 183 



greatest care in complying with the requirements of the 

 contract. 



In Sharp* v. San Paulo Ry. Co., 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 597, 

 during the excavations for a railway, the engineer promised 

 that he would make alterations so as to effect a diminution 

 in cost, in order to make up for work which turned out to be 

 more expensive than had been supposed, though the work 

 was actually included in the entire contract. It was held 

 that the contractor could not recover anything on the 

 promise. The engineer, however, may become personally 

 liable for extras if he orders them on a representation that 

 he has authority to do so (Randell v. Trimen, 1856, 18 

 C. B. 786). 



7. Extras wholly outside the contract, The authority of 

 the engineer to order extras does not extend to things wholly 

 outside the contract. This point was illustrated in Russell v. 

 Sa da Bandeira, 1862, 13 C. B. N. S. 149. In that case there 

 was a contract for the building of a ship. It was provided 

 that no charges should be demanded for extras, but that any 

 additions which might be made by the order in writing of 

 the employer's agent should be paid for at a price previously 

 agreed upon in writing. During the progress of the building 

 of the ship several additions and alterations were made by 

 the direction of the employer's agents, but no written order 

 was given for them. Goods were also ordered for the use of 

 the ship. It was held that the shipbuilder could not recover 

 for extras, alterations, or additions made during the course 

 of the performance of the contract, unless where he had 

 received previous written orders agreeably to the contract. 

 The goods ordered for the use of the ship were, however, held 

 not to be extras. 



8. Limitation to the extra clause. The extra clause must 

 not be construed as authorising the engineer to allow the con- 

 tractor to depart materially from the general design of the 

 work under execution. Dealing with the "extras" and 

 " omissions " clauses in the old case of Rex v. Peto, 1826, 

 1 Y. & J. 53, Alexander, C. B., said : " Every one who is at all 

 conversant with building, knows that, in the course of building, 

 it occurs sometimes to add, and sometimes to desire that 

 certain things may be omitted ; this appears to have been in 



