192 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



The defendant was employed to make a part of the machine 

 and to deliver the same by the end of August, when, as he 

 knew, the plaintiff company had to make delivery to the 

 employer. The defendant was a month late in making 

 delivery of his part, with the result that the employer refused 

 to accept the whole machine. As it was of peculiar construc- 

 tion, no market could be found for it, and it was therefore sold 

 as old iron. It was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to 

 recover the profits which they would have made on the sale to 

 the employer and the expenditure thrown away on the other 

 parts of the machine. From this it may be inferred that any 

 sub-contractor for the execution of a portion of a contract for 

 large works may find himself cast in very considerable damages 

 if he is guilty of delay. 



11. Negligence of sub-contractor. The liability of a sub- 

 contractor for negligence in carrying out his work, or for 

 damages which are caused as a result of that negligence, is 

 very similar to the liability of a head contractor. Indeed this 

 part of the subject might be considered wholly apart from the 

 question of sub-contracts. As a general rule the contractor 

 insists upon the insertion of an indemnity clause. The effect 

 of such a clause will be presently considered. 



When a contractor is employed to do a specified piece of 

 work, and, even after the lapse of some time, damage is 

 occasioned through his negligent omission, he may be held 

 liable. So a wiring contractor might be held responsible for 

 a short circuit which was caused by his faulty workmanship. 

 In a Scotch case, the stock in a shop having been injured by 

 an overflow of water from a house above, the proprietor of the 

 house, who had been found liable for the damage caused, sued 

 a plumber, who had been employed by him to alter and repair 

 the pipes in the house four years before the overflow, for 

 repayment of the sum of damages and expenses paid by him, 

 in respect that the overflow had been occasioned through his 

 insufficient and defective plumber work. It having been 

 proved that the flow was due to an imperfectly secured pipe, 

 the plumber was liable for the expense to which his employer 

 had been put. (M'Intyre v. Gallacher, 1883, 4 Bettie, 64.) 



If the sub-contractor is guilty of negligence or does defective 

 work which renders the head contractor liable to the employer, 

 he may have to pay damages to the head contractor ; and if his 



