MAINTENANCE AND DEFECT CLAUSES 177 



for a year after its completion, part of the last instalment 

 being retained as security therefor. The bridge was completed, 

 a final settlement of the accounts arrived at, and the last instal- 

 ment paid on a certificate granted by the engineer, the whole 

 settlement proceeding on reports furnished to the engineer by 

 the resident inspector. When a year had elapsed, during 

 which the contractor maintained the bridge, it was finally 

 taken over by the trustees. About a year thereafter it was 

 discovered that the bridge was in an unsafe state, and, on 

 inspection, that the work on one of the piers was not in some 

 respects executed according to contract. The trustees there- 

 after raised an action against the contractors, claiming (1) 

 repayment of the sums paid for work not done ; (2) payment 

 of sums expended by them on remedial works made necessary 

 by the contractors' fault ; (3) damages for breach of contract. 

 It was held that, the trustees having taken the appointment of 

 the resident inspector into their own hands, his knowledge 

 must be held to be their knowledge, and that, the final settle- 

 ment having proceeded on reports furnished by him to the 

 engineer, and not on any false and fraudulent representations 

 on the part of the contractors, the trustees were not entitled, 

 after the lapse of so long a time, to open up the final 

 settlement. 



5. Time for bringing action for failing to maintain. Where 

 a contractor is under obligation to maintain the subject- 

 matter for a given period after completion, an action may be 

 brought for failure to maintain before the prescribed period 

 has expired. (Luxmore v. Robson, 1818, 1 B. & A. 584.) 



6. Liability under a clause to rectify defects. A clause 

 which provides that the contractor shall remedy defects is 

 somewhat less onerous for the contractor than a maintenance 

 clause, inasmuch as, if the contractor has done his work 

 properly and in compliance with his contract, the mere cost of 

 maintenance falls on the employer. To take a simple illus- 

 tration. If a man contracted to build and maintain an engine, 

 the wear and tear of the valves would have to be made good 

 by him. But if he had only to make good defects, his liability 

 would not extend to anything caused by the mere wear and 

 tear of the engine in actual working. 



L.A.E. N 



