172 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



of a week in which the contract shall be finished within the 

 specified time." The contract was to complete certain speci- 

 fied works and additional or extra works if properly ordered. 

 The date for completion was April 7th, 1882. The plaintiffs 

 completed six weeks before the appointed day, and received 

 j600 bonus. They claimed further bonus for time taken, as 

 they alleged, by extra works. The engineer had power to 

 extend the time. It was held that the clause only applied in 

 case the engineer should consider that the contractors could 

 not complete within the time, to save the contractors from 

 penalties, and not to give them additional bonuses. 



If the employer agrees to give a bonus for expedition, and 

 the contractor to pay a penalty for delay, and the covenants 

 are independent, and the covenant to pay a penalty for delay 

 is absolute, if the contractor has been prevented by the 

 employer from completing by the date fixed, he must pay or 

 allow further penalty ; but he has an action for damages 

 against the employer, including the deductions caused by the 

 employer's neglect. 



" Any other construction," said Baron Alderson, in Macintosh 

 v. Midland Counties Ey. Co., 1845, 14 M. & W. 548, " would 

 lead to this conclusion, which we think an unreasonable one, 

 that the non-supply of a single rail or chair (by the company) 

 at the time specified for its delivery, although in the result 

 wholly immaterial to the facilities for completion, would 

 entitle the plaintiff to receive the 15,000 given as expedition 

 money, without his giving expedition for it." 



Where it was agreed that a builder should have a bonus of 

 j360 if part of the work was completed within nine weeks, 

 and the work having been in hand for a week was stopped 

 owing to a dispute between the building-owner and his 

 neighbour, and was not recommenced for more than a month, 

 it was held that the builder was entitled to recover the bonus 

 (Bywaters v. Carnick, 1905, Emden's Building Contracts, 660). 



