Forrest v. The Scottish County Investment Co., Ltd [1915] UKHL 7 (18 October 1915)

Forrest v. The Scottish County Investment Co., Ltd [1915] UKHL 7 (18 October 1915)

The deviations from the specified rybat sizes were matters of constructional detail, not contractual obligation, and were within the architect's authority to sanction given the vagueness of the plans and the contract's terms. The builder, having completed the works to the architect's satisfaction and received final certificates, is entitled to recover the contract price.

Citation
[1915] UKHL 7
Parties
Respondent (pursuer/builder): Forrest; Appellant (defender/proprietor): The Scottish County Investment Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 October 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / House of Lords Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Architect's Authority, Deviation From Contract Terms, Measure and Value Contracts, Final Certificate and Payment
Contract Law Construction Law Building Contracts Architect's Authority Deviation From Contract Terms Measure and Value Contracts Final Certificate and Payment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forrest

Respondent (pursuer/builder)

The Scottish County Investment Company, Limited

Appellant (defender/proprietor)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / House of Lords Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deviations from specified dimensions in a building contract, sanctioned by the architect, constitute a breach precluding recovery of the contract price.
  2. 2 Whether the architect had authority to permit deviations from the schedule regarding constructional details such as rybat sizes.

Ratio Decidendi

The deviations from the specified rybat sizes were matters of constructional detail, not contractual obligation, and were within the architect's authority to sanction given the vagueness of the plans and the contract's terms. The builder, having completed the works to the architect's satisfaction and received final certificates, is entitled to recover the contract price.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay the contract price to the respondent
  • Appellants to pay costs/expenses of the appeal