PENALTIES AND BONUSES 165 



within the time specified. The defendants having accordingly 

 deducted penalties, the plaintiff brought an action to recover 

 on his contract. It was decided that he had undertaken to 

 execute not only the works specified, but also all alterations, 

 within the time prescribed in the contract, and that it was no 

 implied condition of the contract that the alterations should 

 be such as could reasonably be completed within this time. 



Where, however, in the case of alterations being ordered, 

 the engineer has power to extend the time, but has not 

 exercised it, and there is delay, the builder or manufacturer 

 must not be mulcted in penalties. In the case of Wcstwood v. 

 The Secretary of State for India (1863, 7 L. T. 736) the plain- 

 tiff contracted to build a ship. The time of completion was 

 fixed. The contract provided that alterations might be ordered, 

 and that the engineer was to have power to allow an extension 

 of time for them. Failure to complete within the fixed or 

 extended time was to subject the plaintiff to certain penalties. 

 The engineer ordered various alterations, but the time for 

 completion was not extended, with the result that the ship- 

 builder exceeded the time specified in the contract. In an 

 action brought by the shipbuilder for the cost of the altera- 

 tions, the Secretary of State entered a counter-claim for 

 penalties. By way of answer to the counter-claim it was 

 pleaded that the alterations ordered had made it impossible to 

 complete the work within the specified time. The Court held 

 that this afforded a good answer to the claim for penalties. 



The severity of the penalty clause may be further illustrated 

 by reference to two incidents which were recorded some years 

 ago (see the Engineer, Aug. 3, 1900). An order was given 

 in this country by Germany for certain boats. The specifica- 

 tion was strict. The fittings of the boats throughout were to 

 be of galvanised iron. The contractor, determined to give 

 satisfaction in order to secure more orders, made all the 

 fittings of gun-metal. The inspector rejected all the boats, 

 and left them on the contractor's hands. They did not comply 

 with the specification. Nor would he take them if the fittings 

 were changed. The contractor thought himself happy in 

 being permitted to build a new set of boats. The second case 

 also occurred several years ago, and is well known. Gunboats 

 were ordered by the Admiralty. Their machinery must not 

 weigh more, under a heavy penalty, than a stated number of 

 tons. A Cheshire firm exceeded the weight by several tons. 



