190 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



was to be supplied to the contractor by certain specified firms, 

 and that " if the engineer shall have reasonable cause to 

 believe that the contractor is unduly delaying proper payment 

 to the firms supplying the machinery, he shall have power, if 

 he thinks fit, to order direct payment to them." The con- 

 tractor having become bankrupt, it was held that the engineer 

 had power to direct the payments to be made to the machinery 

 firms direct. Mr. Justice Bigham said : " I think the clause 

 means that if the persons supplying machinery to the con- 

 tractor for the purpose of the contract are not promptly and 

 properly paid by him, they can apply to the engineer, arid 

 then it shall be competent for the engineer to intervene, 

 and by a proper certificate given in that behalf to require the 

 council to pay to the machinery firms the amount of their 

 accounts directly that is to say, not through the hands of the 

 contractor at all, but the money is to be paid directly by the 

 council to the machinery firms." 



9. Liability of employer for delay of sub-contractor. If an 

 employer reserves to himself the right of employing specialists 

 to do any portion of the work on a large contract, he does not 

 thereby give any implied undertaking to the head contractor 

 that he will be responsible for any damage caused to the 

 builder by any delay or default on the part of the specialists. 

 In the case of Mitchell v. Guildford Union, 1903, 68 J. P. 54, 

 a builder undertook to do the whole of a certain piece of work 

 for a certain sum, but part of it was to be done by specialists. 

 The builder undertook to finish the work by a certain date 

 unless he was hindered by (inter alia) delay on the part of the 

 engineers or other specialists. The builder was not to be 

 liable for any defects in works provided by the specialists, 

 unless by reason of contributory negligence on his part, or 

 his having paid any final balance to the specialists without 

 first having the architect's written authority to do so. In the 

 course of the work there was delay on the part of the specialists 

 whereby the builder suffered damage. The builder brought 

 an action for breach of contract against the building owners, 

 alleging that under the contract and specification there was an 

 implied promise on the part of the building owners that the 

 delivering and pricing should be done at such reasonable times 

 as to enable the builder to complete his work within a reason- 

 able time thereafter, and that the building owners had broken 



