170 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



engineer with reference to the plaintiff's claim against 

 the defendant board. The engineer admitted that the 

 plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the expense caused 

 by delay in consequence of the non-removal of the staging, and 

 agreed to allow 15 10s. per day for thirty-eight days, but 

 they could not agree upon the amount due to the plaintiff for 

 extra work and other expenses. In June, 1880, the engineer 

 sent a certificate to the works committee of the defendant 

 board, stating that the work was finished to his satisfaction, 

 and that 1,06,5 19s. was due to the plaintiff, and the 

 defendants sent a cheque to the value of 962 6s. 2d., that 

 being the balance of the sum certified after making certain 

 deductions. The plaintiff, after giving credit for this sum, 

 brought an action against the defendants for 2,489 13s. ~LId. 

 It was decided that it was not a difference concerning a matter 

 in connection with the contract, and as to which the decision 

 of the engineer was conclusive. In order to bind a contractor 

 by the certificate or decision of an architect or engineer 

 appointed by the party for whom the work is done there 

 must be very conclusive language in the contract. It was 

 decided, also, that the documents set out in the case did 

 not amount to a contract by the engineer, or a reference to or 

 award by him as to the plaintiff's claims. 



13. Terms of the contract as to extension of time to be 

 observed. The power of granting an extension of time, which, 

 as we have seen, is frequently conferred upon the engineer, 

 must be exercised by him in strict accordance with the terms 

 of the contract between the parties. This was emphasised in 

 British Thomson Houston Co., Ltd. v. West Brothers (1903, 

 19 T. L. E. 493). There an action was brought by building- 

 owners to recover penalties for non-completion on the date 

 agreed under the contract between the parties. This document 

 provided that the architect might, in certain circumstances, 

 extend the time for the completion of the work, but did not 

 expressly confer upon him the power to deal with penalties. 

 There was admittedly a delay in the execution of the works, 

 but the defendants contended that the delay was impliedly 

 permitted by the architects, who had given their final certi- 

 ficate in the following form : " We hereby certify the sum 

 of 536 15s. 5d. is due to Messrs. West Bros, in settle- 

 ment of contract for the erection of the power stations." The 



