CEETIFICATES AND PAYMENT 153 



the contractor, either during the progress of the works or after 

 the determination, abandonment, or breach of the contract . . . 

 (except certain specified matters left to the discretion of the 

 architect e.g., defects after completion), ... or as to the 

 withholding by the architect of any certificate to which the 

 contractor may claim to be entitled, . . . the dispute shall be 

 referred to arbitration." The builder having sued for sums 

 alleged to be due on the architect's certificate, the building- 

 owner preferred a counter-claim for damages, alleging that 

 the certificate had been granted in respect of work done and 

 materials supplied which were defective. The Court of Appeal 

 held that the clause which provided that no certificate should 

 be considered conclusive evidence as to the sufficiency of work 

 or materials was quite general, and that the arbitration clause 

 had effect to destroy the finality of the certificates. In the 

 result, although the work done by him had virtually been 

 passed by the architect, the builder was compelled to submit 

 it to the consideration of an arbitrator in accordance with the 

 terms of the arbitration clause. 



In another case (Hohenzollern Gesellschaft v. London 

 Contract Corporation, 1886, 2 H. B. C. 96), a contract between 

 the plaintiffs and the defendants provided for the sale of six 

 locomotive tramway engines and two boilers, with necessary 

 fittings. It was a term of the contract that " the purchasers 

 shall pay the vendors one half of the contract price on the 

 certificate of Mr. Floyd (the purchasers' engineer) that the 

 locomotives and boilers are in perfect working order at 

 Croydon, one quarter thereof two months after the date of 

 such certificate, and the remainder thereof four months after 

 the date of such certificate." It was also provided that the 

 locomotives and boilers were to be built under the inspection 

 of, and to the satisfaction and approval of, the purchasers' 

 engineer. A further clause provided that all disputes were to 

 be settled in arbitration by the engineer of the purchasers, 

 and the engineer to be appointed by the vendors, or their 

 umpire in case of difference. 



The engines were made, and some, or all of them, were sent 

 to Croydon, but the purchasers' engineer declined to give a 

 certificate. The manufacturers claimed that a dispute had 

 arisen which should be determined by arbitration. It was 

 held that the two engineers and the umpire, sitting as arbitra- 

 tors, had power to determine whether the price was payable or 



