PENALTIES AND BONUSES 171 



question of law for the opinion of the Court was whether, in 

 view of the certificate, and of the powers of the architect 

 under the contract, this certificate afforded a complete 

 answer to the plaintiffs' claim. Mr. Justice Phillimore, in 

 giving judgment, said that the following, which is taken from 

 Hudson on Building Contracts, was an accurate statement 

 of the law : " If the architect gives a final certificate without 

 allowing any deduction for penalties, it will be presumed that 

 he has extended the time for completion, unless, as in the 

 foregoing illustration, it is proved or admitted that the matter 

 has not been determined by him, or was not expressly or 

 impliedly within his jurisdiction." It was also pointed out 

 that the architect's certificate at most raised a very strong 

 presumption that in giving his certificate he had taken all 

 the circumstances of the case into consideration. That 

 presumption, however, might be rebutted. 



14. Penalties in contracts with local authorities. A penalty 

 clause is essential to every contract with a local authority, for 

 it is provided by the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 174 (2), that : 

 " Every such contract shall specify the work, materials, 

 matters, and things to be had or done, the price to be paid 

 and the time or times within which the contract is to be 

 performed, and must specify the pecuniary penalty to be paid 

 in case the terms of the contract are not duly performed." It 

 has been decided that this provision is mandatory (Young v. 

 Leamington, 1883, 8 A. C. 517). 



15. Bonus clauses. Hitherto we have dealt only with the 

 penalty clause ; there is another clause often inserted in engi- 

 neering contracts, the administration of which depends very 

 largely upon the engineer. We refer to the " bonus " clause. 

 A contract sometimes contains a clause providing that a 

 bonus shall be paid to the contractor for expedition. If there 

 is such a clause, and the engineer has power to extend the 

 time, this power, according to a New Zealand case, is not to 

 be exercised by the engineer for the purpose of enabling the 

 contractor to earn the bonus, but, on the contrary, to save him 

 from penalties. In the case in point (Ware v. Lyttelton 

 Harbour Board, 1882, 1 New Zealand Reports, S. C. 191), 

 it was agreed by a contract that : " The Board will grant the 

 contractors a bonus of .100 per week for every week or part 



