CERTIFICATES AND PAYMENT 151 



the architect was charged not with negligence in granting 

 certificates but with negligence in supervision a very 

 different matter. This case (Chambers v. Goldthorpe), which 

 must now be regarded as a leading authority, is by no means 

 easy to reconcile with the other authorities, as will be seen by 

 reference to the dissenting judgment of Eomer, L. J. The 

 writer would not be surprised to find it over-ruled some day 

 by the House of Lords. 



11. Finality of certificate. The fact that no action lies 



against an engineer for granting or withholding a certificate, 



goes far to establish the finality of the decision so expressed. 



It has been decided that the contractor can maintain no action 



where the contract shows that the parties intended the final 



expression of the architect's satisfaction with the entire 



contract to be conclusive (Dunaberg v. Hopkins, Gilkes & Co., 



1877, 36 L. T. 733). Again, suppose the engineer has power 



to determine a contract upon the default of the contractor, his 



certificate to that effect is conclusive and puts an end to 



the contract (Roberts v. Bury Harbour Commissioners, L. K. 



5 C. P. 310). To make the certificate final on any point, 



there must, however, be very clear language. Suppose, for 



instance, the decision of the engineer, as given by certificate, 



is to be final upon the question whether the work has been 



completed within the proper time. Assume that there is 



delay, and a question arises whether such delay was not 



really caused by the employer himself. This question could 



not be determined by the engineer. In Lawson v. Wallasey 



Local Board, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 239, there was a contract 



which contained the usual clause referring disputes to the 



engineer. He was to decide every difference " concerning 



the work hereby contracted for, or concerning anything in 



connection with this contract." Delay having been occasioned 



owing to the employers not removing certain obstructions 



which prevented the contractor commencing dredging 



operations, it was contended that this question must be 



settled by the engineer. The Court held that the certificate 



of the engineer was not final on such a point. " Looking at 



the terms of this contract, which provided for a definite 



amount of dredging to be done by a certain time, with power 



to the engineer to extend the time as long as he should think 



reasonable in case of the non-removal of staging, there is an 



