Murray v. The Queen

Murray v. The Queen

Where an engineer in charge has classified a particular class of work, fixed its value, and the certificate was acted upon and approved by the Minister with payment made, that determination is final as between the Crown and contractors and cannot be reopened or revised by a succeeding engineer in the absence of fraud; furthermore contractors may sue on a valid progress certificate without waiting for final completion, and monthly estimates are approximate but binding when duly certified and acted upon.

Citation
(1896) 26 SCR 203
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Harriet Murray, Administratrix; Appellant (plaintiff): Merritt A. Cleveland; Respondent (defendant): Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 1896
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original judgment of the Exchequer Court in favour of the contractors restored; contractors entitled to the amount certified less 10% retention and costs.
Legal Topics
Progress Payments, Engineer's Certificate, Finality of Engineer's Decisions, Classification of Work and Extras, Waiver of Formal Certificate Defects
Source Language
English
Contract Law Administrative Law Public Procurement Progress Payments Engineer's Certificate Finality of Engineer's Decisions Classification of Work and Extras Waiver of Formal Certificate Defects

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harriet Murray, Administratrix

Appellant (plaintiff)

Merritt A. Cleveland

Appellant (plaintiff)

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the monthly progress certificate satisfied the contract's condition precedent to payment
  2. 2 Whether a succeeding engineer could reopen and revise a predecessor's classification and valuation after payment
  3. 3 Whether contractors could sue on a progress estimate prior to final completion

Ratio Decidendi

Where an engineer in charge has classified a particular class of work, fixed its value, and the certificate was acted upon and approved by the Minister with payment made, that determination is final as between the Crown and contractors and cannot be reopened or revised by a succeeding engineer in the absence of fraud; furthermore contractors may sue on a valid progress certificate without waiting for final completion, and monthly estimates are approximate but binding when duly certified and acted upon.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original judgment of the Exchequer Court in favour of the contractors restored; contractors entitled to the amount certified less 10% retention and costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs including costs of the rehearing below
  • Original judgment of Mr. Justice Burbidge (Exchequer Court) restored