176 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



He was to deliver it up to the owners in good order at the end 

 of that period. The larboard cylinder and condenser having 

 proved defective within the time named, the contractor was 

 held bound to make good the loss arising from this cause. 



4. Maintenance of work not properly supervised. It is often 

 provided that the certificate of the architect or engineer shall 

 be conclusive evidence of the work having been completed. 

 In this connection it is material to point out that a certain 

 responsibility rests with the employer, or rather with his 

 agent the engineer or architect. It is the duty of the engi- 

 neer to exercise supervision ; and if he fails in this the 

 employer cannot be afterwards heard to say that the contractor 

 has committed a breach of contract in not complying with the 

 terms of a maintenance clause. In one case (School Board for 

 London v. Johnson, Emden's Building Contracts, p. 665) a con- 

 tractor was bound to execute certain works to the satisfaction 

 of the architect of the London School Board. The contract 

 also provided that, if within four months of the completion of 

 the works any defect arising from improper material or work- 

 manship should be found, the contractor should make it good 

 at his own cost. The certificate of the architect was to be 

 conclusive evidence that the work had been completed and 

 that the balance was payable. A further clause provided that 

 no final certificate should relieve the contractor from any fraud, 

 default, or wilful deviation from his contract, but that he 

 should remain for four years liable for such acts. An arbi- 

 trator found as a fact that there were certain minor deviations 

 from the contract which could not have become manifest 

 without the contributory negligence of the School Board or its 

 agents. It was held that in these circumstances the contractors 

 were not liable. In a Scotch case (Ayr Road Trustees v. Adams, 

 1883, Kettie (4th Ser.), 11), the plaintiffs had employed the 

 defendants to build a bridge. It was provided in the contract 

 that the work should be done to the satisfaction of one of a 

 firm of engineers employed by the plaintiffs ; that the actual 

 execution should be supervised by a resident inspector 

 appointed by the engineer (it afterwards turned out that he 

 was in point of fact appointed by the Eoad Trustees, and was 

 subject to their orders) ; and that the contract price should be 

 payable by instalments on certificates granted by the engineer. 

 The contractors were further bound to maintain the bridge 



