Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/780

 Bailment.

558 Sect.

4.

Hire of

Work and

L abour.

otherwise (o), in the absence of a contract to complete it the hirer nevertheless have to pay for the work actually done and for the materials supplied (p) workman who engages to do specified work in connection with a chattel for an agreed sum to be paid on completion, and fails to complete the work in accordance with the specification, is not entitled to recover the price agreed upon, nor even the actual value of the work he has done on a qioantum meruit (q), unless the failure to complete is due to the hirer's default (r). Yet if a new contract is made to pay for the work actually done (s), the workman is entitled to recover the price agreed upon less a deduction, and the measure of that deduction is generally the sum which it would take to alter or complete the work so as to make it correspond with the specification (t). Where the hirer is under no obligation to pay for the work done, he incurs no additional obligation by reason of the fact that the workman has incorporated his own materials with those of the

may

.

hirer Extras.

(u).

1131. If the workman without any order or request does more work than was originally stipulated for in the contract, and there is on the part of the hirer no acquiescence in the change, although the extra work is essential to the proper performance of the contract, the hirer, in the absence of bad faith or concealment {v), is not bound to pay more than the sum originally agreed upon by him (?/;). So, a workman, employed to do specified work on a chattel for an agreed sum, who instead of doing the specified work does different or better work, can recover from the hirer

neither the agreed sum under the special contract, nor the value of the work done on a quantum meruit^ unless the hirer The mere fact has sanctioned or acquiesced in the change. that the hirer has received the chattel on which the work has been done and has sold it at an enhanced price does not amount to acquiescence {x). But where during the course of the work the extras have been ordered or assented to by the hirer, such extra work must be In such cases, the contract is paid for on a quantum meruit.

(o) Menetone v. Athawes (1764), 3 Burr. 1592. Ip) Appleby v. Myers (1867), L. K. 2 C. P. 651, per Blackbukn-, J., at p. 660. Compare Roberts v. HavelocJc (q) Sinclair v. Bowles (1829), 9 B. & C. 92. See also Sumpter v. Hedges, [1898] 1 Q. B. 673, Munro (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 404. Ellis v. Hamlen -(ISIO), 3 Taunt. 52. V. Butt (1858), 8 E. & B. 738 (r) Appleby v. Myers, supra, per Blackbukn, J., at p. 658. (s) Appleby v. Myers, supra, per Blackburn, J., at p. 661. (t) Thornton v. Place (1832), 1 Mood. & E., per Parke, J., at p. 219 ; Ranger V. Great Western Rail. Co. (1854), 5 H. L. Cas. 72. (u) Sinclair v. Bowles, supra. (v) Story on Bailments, s. 425. (w) Brown v. Rollo (1832), 10 Sh., Gt. of Sess. 667 ; Wilmot v. Smith (1828), 3 C. & P. 453. Compare (x) Forman cfc Co. Proprietary v. The Liddesdale, [1900] A. C. 190. Monro v. Butt, supra.