TIME 139 



9 B. & S. 559). If the contract provides that the work is to 

 be done within a reasonable time, and the contractor fails to 

 commence operations, it is no defence for him to say that the 

 employer knew it had not been begun up to a certain date, and 

 that a reasonable time had not since elapsed (Fisher v. Ford, 

 1840, 4 Jur. 1034). 



5. Effect of extras on time- conditions. Where the contract 

 provides that the work shall be completed by a certain time, 

 whether extras are ordered or not, the contractor will be bound 

 by his undertaking, however rash it may appear to be. This 

 was laid down in the well-known case of Jones v. St. John's 

 College, 1871, L. E. 6 Q. B. 115. In that case the plaintiff 

 contractor agreed to do the work by a certain day. The 

 contract provided that extra work should be ordered in a 

 particular manner, and that, notwithstanding such extra work, 

 the time-limit was not to be extended, unless by an order 

 signed by the clerk of the works, and countersigned by the 

 college bursar. Extra work was done, but there was no 

 express extension of the time-limit. It was held that inas- 

 much as they had expressly agreed to do all the work, and 

 extra work if ordered, within the original time-limit, the con- 

 tractors were bound, to complete within the specified time 

 " although it might involve an impossibility." (See further 

 as to this case sub-tit. "Severity of the penalty clause," 

 Chap. XV., 7, post.) 



It may be assumed, however, that the Court will not be 

 very willing to bind a contractor down to the completion of all 

 the work, including extras, within the specified time, and it 

 may be regarded as settled law that if the employer, or the 

 engineer acting for him, orders extras, an extension of time 

 will be allowed to the contractor. This is well illustrated by 

 the comparatively recent case of Doddv. Churton, 1897, 1 Q. B. 

 562. There the contract provided that the work was to be 

 done within a specified time, but it also contained a clause to 

 the effect that other work might be ordered by way of addition 

 to that specified in the contract. It was also provided that 

 any authority given by the architect for alterations or additions 

 was not to vitiate the contract. Extra work having been 

 ordered, the builder was unable to complete in contract-time. 

 It was held that he was excused. The provision that the 

 contract was not to be vitiated was held not to exclude the 



