186 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



In considering the propriety of allowing portions of the 

 work to be placed in the hands of a sub-contractor, the 

 engineer must needs prosecute some inquiry into the relia- 

 bility of the person whom the contractor desires to employ. 

 Such inquiry will be the more important if the work in 

 question relates to an integral part of the undertaking in 

 which delay might involve a stoppage of the entire work. 



2. Right of contractor to employ sub-contractors. Generally 

 speaking, where there is no stipulation against sub-contracting, 

 a contractor may employ sub-contractors. The rule, however, 

 is subject to the qualification that it does not apply when the 

 employer reasonably and naturally looks for the personal 

 service and attention of the contractor. Thus if the work in 

 hand were of a highly special character it would not be 

 competent for a contractor who was skilled in that class of 

 work to hand over its performance to some one else. It is 

 otherwise, however, when the work involves the exercise of no 

 special degree of skill. Cockburn, C. J., in British Waggon Co. 

 v. Lea, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 149 (at p. 153), thus stated his view 

 of the law on the subject : " Much work is contracted for 

 which it is known can only be executed by means of sub- 

 contracts ; much is contracted for as to which it is indifferent 

 to the party for whom it is to be done whether it is done by 

 the immediate party to the contract, or by some one on his 

 behalf. In all these cases the maxim * quifacit per aliumfacit 

 per se ' applies." 



3. Whether engineer has power to employ sub-contractors. 

 Although there does not appear to be any English case on the 

 point, it appears that an engineer has no implied authority 

 to employ sub-contractors to do any part of the contract work, 

 or any work which is extra to that work. The law has been 

 so laid down in Canada. (See Cowan v. Goderich Northern 

 Gravel Road Co., 1859, 10 Up. Can. C. P. 87, cited H. B. C. 

 Vol. L, p. 16.) In that case the plaintiff was a sub-contractor 

 employed by head contractors who were constructing a road 

 for the defendants. The defendants' engineer instructed the 

 plaintiff to do certain work, for the price of which this action 

 was brought. It was held that the action did not lie, as 

 the engineer had no authority to give the order in question. 



