AKBITKATIONS AND AWAKDS 225 



If an award extends to matters which are not within the scope 

 of the submission it will be void, at least as to so much as is 

 in excess of the submission. 



Where there was a contract to sell goods by sample, it was 

 provided that " any dispute to be settled by arbitration." 

 The arbitrators awarded that buyers should accept the goods, 

 and that the sellers should make allowance of Is. 6d. per case. 

 It was held that the submission extended to nothing except the 

 question whether the goods were up to guarantee, and that if 

 not, buyers were entitled to reject them (Re Green < Go. and 

 Balfour d Co., 1890, 63 L. T. 97). On the authority of this 

 case, if an engineer were called upon to decide whether work 

 had been done in accordance with contract, it would not be 

 competent for him to award that the employer must accept it 

 subject to an abatement in price. 



Although it is true, as already stated, that one part of an 

 award may be held good, an arbitrator deals with the matters 

 before him as if they were all linked together. " I always find 

 a difficulty," said Lord Denman in Tomlin v. Mayor o/Fordwick 

 (1836, 5 A. & E. 152), "in separating the good part of an 

 award from the bad. The arbitrator probably frames one part 

 with a view to the other ; and each may be varied by the view 

 which he takes of the whole." 



It follows from this that the bad part must be wholly 

 severable from the rest of the award. If the bad part is so 

 mixed up with the rest that it cannot be rejected, the award 

 is void altogether (Duke of Buccleugh v. Metropolitan Board of 

 Works, 1872, 39 L. J. Ex. 137). 



An award made in favour of a person who is a stranger to 

 the submission is bad unless it be beneficial to the party 

 entitled to receive satisfaction, and the advantage to the party 

 should appear on the face of the award (Bird v. Bird, 1795, 

 1 Salk. 74). 



(b) An award, must extend to all matters mentioned in the 

 submission. If several distinct matters are referred, and the 

 arbitrator omits to decide upon any one of such matters, the 

 whole award is vitiated (see Doe v. Homer, 1838, 8 A. & E. 

 235). In some cases mere silence on the part of the arbitrator 

 with regard to a particular question is sufficient to show that 

 he has adjudicated upon it. In the case of Harrison v. 

 Creswick (1852, 21 L. J. C. P. 113), Baron Parke laid down 

 the following rule : " Where there is a further claim made by 



L.A.E. Q 



