200 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



It was decided by the Court of Appeal that the obligation of 

 the defendants to supply power did not arise upon a demise, 

 but upon a specific contract which involved, in the absence of 

 special conditions, that the power supplied should be reason- 

 ably fit for the purpose for which it was supplied, and that the 

 defendants were liable for the consequences of a breach of that 

 contract. The following passage from the judgment of Cozens- 

 Hardy, L. J., serves to explain the reason of the decision : 

 11 There was, in fact, a purchase of something, whatever it 

 may be called, and it seems to me that the principle which 

 governs the relation of the parties upon a purchase and sale, 

 namely, that the article bought should be fit and proper for 

 the purpose for which it is to be used, is equally applicable to 

 the supply of power." Where, as frequently happens in the 

 case of a tenement factory, the owners of the factory supply 

 power from a central plant to a large number of independent 

 manufacturers, they would do well to consider the advisability 

 of so limiting their liability that they cannot be sued for the 

 damages caused by the main engine racing or other accident. 

 The illustration above given relates to the supply of power 

 by shafting. Where electricity is supplied from a central 

 source in one factory, it may be well for the party supply- 

 ing it to make special provision for a breakdown or sudden 

 overload. 



3. What is a " complete installation." The use of technical 

 terms in contracts for electrical work is very common, but is 

 not unlikely to lead to confusion. In an unreported case 

 (Cort v. Holford) heard by the judge at the Mayor's Court on 

 February 12, 1907, a question arose as to what is meant by 

 a " complete installation " in relation to the supply of elec- 

 tricity. The plaintiffs quoted for the electrical part of an 

 installation which was to be used for lighting a house. The 

 dynamo, which was to charge accumulators, was to be worked 

 by a 3 h.p. engine which the defendant had in his posses- 

 sion. The plaintiffs agreed to provide a complete installation 

 for a certain sum, that sum being made up of a number of 

 items, including accumulators, switchboard, and other fittings, 

 but apparently not including a cut-out or shunt resistance. 

 The main point in the case was whether a cut-out and a 

 shunt resistance were necessary parts of a complete installa- 

 tion. If so, they could not be charged for as extras. It was 



