146 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEKS 



In accordance with these accounts, payments to the extent of 

 80 per cent, were made under clause 4 of the contract, but no 

 final certificate was issued. In spite of this the contractor 

 sued for the retention money. It was held that the final 

 certificate was a condition precedent which could not be 

 dispensed with. 



Not only must a certificate be obtained, if the contract makes 

 it a condition precedent to payment, but all the formalities in 

 relation thereto must be strictly observed. In Lorden and 

 Son v. Pryce (Emcleris Building Contracts, 4th Ed., p. 664) a 

 building contract contained the usual clause referring ques- 

 tions which might arise to the architect ; another clause (18) 

 requiring that orders for extras were to be signed by the 

 secretary and treasurer and countersigned by the architect. 

 The builder having completed the work, the architect issued a 

 final certificate which apparently included certain extras which 

 had not been signed for by the secretary and treasurer. It 

 was held that the architect having no power either by direction 

 or by consent or waiver to get rid of Clause 18, the plaintiffs 

 were not entitled to recover the cost of extras, although 

 included in the final certificate. (See further as to the effect of 

 the final certificate on extras, Chap. XII., 10, ante.) 



6. Must the engineer give reasons ? Must an engineer, 

 whose duty it is to grant or withhold a certificate, give reasons 

 for his action? Must he specify the method by which he 

 determines the fact that so much is due ? It is submitted 

 that he is under no obligation to give reasons, or disclose his 

 calculations. It has, at any rate, been decided that no action 

 lies against an architect on the head of negligence for refusing 

 to state the grounds upon which he formed his opinion. In 

 Stevenson v. Watson, 1879, L. E. 4 C, P. D. 148, the facts of 

 which are stated elsewhere (SQQ post, 10), it was alleged that 

 an architect who was by the contract to form an opinion, and 

 who had formed and expressed it, declined to say on what he 

 grounded it, or to hear argument offered to show that the 

 opinion was wrongly formed. This was said to be sufficient to 

 ground an action for negligence. Commenting on this allega- 

 tion, Lord Coleridge, C. J., said (at p. 159) : " I think if his 

 position be such as I have described (i.e., that of a professional 

 man called upon to exercise his judgment) he is not bound to 

 give the grounds of his opinion, or to reconsider it, and that 



