PENALTIES AND BONUSES 169 



during the progress of the work are frequently left to the 

 decision of the engineer, and his opinion is binding upon 

 either party. This principle is illustrated by several cases. 

 Thus in an action on a builder's contract, which provided 

 that all the works should be left complete and clear, to the 

 satisfaction of the architect, and did not contain any provision 

 for payment by instalments, it was decided : (1) that the 

 completion of the works to the satisfaction of the architect 

 was a condition precedent to the builder's right to recover 

 on the footing of the contract ; (2) that he was not entitled 

 to recover for the value of work done as to which, while 

 incomplete, the architect had expressed approval so far as 

 then partially executed, but which was not subsequently 

 completed to the architect's satisfaction. (Richardson v. Mahon, 

 1879, 4 L. B. Ir., 486.) 



The necessary power and authority must, however, be 

 conferred upon the engineer by the clearest possible language ; 

 for in agreeing to be bound by the decision of some one who 

 is retained and paid by the employer, a contractor in one 

 sense hands himself over to the enemy. 



In Lawson v. Wallasey Local Board (1883, 11 Q. B. D. 229), 

 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants to 

 remove 10,000 cubic yards of the Mersey contiguous to 

 Leacombe Ferry for 5,000, and to finish the work completely 

 under the direction and to the satisfaction of the defendants' 

 engineer by the 1st October, 1878, subject to an extension 

 of time as the engineer might think reasonable, in case a 

 temporary staging then erected on the site of the work should 

 not be removed within such a time as would enable the 

 plaintiff to complete the work by the 1st of October, 1878. 

 The defendants were to make monthly payments on the 

 certificate of the engineer to the amount of 80 per cent, of 

 the value of the work done during each month, and the 

 balance of the sum of 5,000 on the completion of the work. 

 There was also a clause in the contract providing that if any 

 difference should arise between the local board and the 

 contractor concerning the work contracted for, or concerning 

 anything in connection with the contract, such difference 

 should be referred to the engineer, and his decision should be 

 final and binding on the local board and the contractor. The 

 work was completed on the llth November, 1879, and then a 

 correspondence took place between the plaintiff and the 



