226 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



the plaintiff, or a cross demand set up by the defendant, and 

 the award, professing to be made of and concerning the 

 matters referred, is silent respecting such further claim or 

 cross demand, the award amounts to an adjudication that the 

 plaintiff has no such further claim, or that the defendant's 

 cross demand is untenable ; but where the matter so set up 

 from its nature requires to be specifically adjudicated upon, 

 mere silence will not do. The arbitrator must not rely upon 

 this decision to justify his remaining silent upon a particular 

 point which may be referred to him. He should keep all the 

 questions before him and answer them specifically in his 

 award." 



(c) An award must be certain. Passing on to the question of 

 certainty, it is manifest that an arbitrator ill performs his 

 duty if he frames his award in such a way that the parties 

 cannot appreciate his meaning. Where an arbitrator made 

 an award to the effect that Brown overpaid Jones a certain 

 specified sum, this was held to be sufficiently uncertain to 

 prevent the award being carried into effect (Thornton v. Hornby, 

 1881, 8 Bing. 18). An uncertainty must be in a material 

 part of the award. Uncertainty with regard to a matter not 

 in issue would be a matter of no consequence. 



In construing an award, however, the Court will endeavour, as 

 far as possible, to read it as if it were certain. Thus the legal 

 maxim, id cerium est quod cerium reddi potest, which, being 

 interpreted, means that " that is certain which is capable of 

 being rendered certain," is applied. 



In illustration of the application of this maxim, Wohlenberg 

 v. Lageman (1815, 6 Taunt. 254) may be referred to. There 

 an award stated that Jones and Smith should pay Brown a 

 debt in the proportions in which they held shares in a ship. 

 It was held that this was sufficiently certain. In another case 

 an award, which ordered Brown to pay Jones as much as was 

 due in conscience, was held void for uncertainty (Watson v. 

 Watson, 1671, Sty. 28). 



(d)*An award must be final. " An award," saysMr. Eedman 

 in his " Arbitrations and Awards," " must be a final settlement 

 of all matters contained in the submission requiring decision, 

 and if it leaves the final decision of some of the matters to be 

 ascertained in the future, it will not be binding on the parties." 

 This rule, of course, must be construed with due regard to 

 the submission, and the award need only be as final as the 



