The case Scrivener and another v Park is a case in point.
To sum up, it may be said that he who pays for the quantities has a remedy against him who prepared them. There must in law be a payment for work done to enable a person to complain of that work. If, therefore, the successful builder pays for the quantities and they are short - he is not likely to complain if they are full - it would appear he has his remedy, unless something has been said or written to exonerate the surveyor who took out the quantities.
The cases that decide
The contractors in evidence stated that they paid the 2 per cent for the
Times New Roman is a serif typeface commissioned by the British newspaper The Times in 1931, created by Victor Lardent at the English branch of Monotype.[1] It was commissioned after Stanley Morison had written an article criticizing The Times for being badly printed and typographically antiquated.[2] The font was supervised by Morison and drawn by Victor Lardent, an artist
drawn by Victor Lardent, an artist from the advertising department of The Times. Morison used an older font named Plantin as the basis for his design, but made revisions for legibility and economy of space. Morison's revision became known as Times New Roman and made its debut in the 3 October 1932 issue of The Times newspaper.[3]
quantities on which the contract was taken, but had not paid a claim from the plaintif for £103 dated 5th January 1886, because when the work was measured up the proprietors always paid the commission on additions and omissions unless the amount was added to the builder's account. The builder did not pay on measuring up unless he received it from the proprietors. The did not receive it from the proprietors. The architect stated that the quantity surveyor was engaged with the defenant's sanction to prepare the quantities for the new building, and that his certificates were given for teh amount given "pro rata" according to the contract, and including what was due to the quantity surveyor, but the amount was not specified. He delt with the commission on the omissions additions in the final certificate to the contractors. It was then specifically arranged that the sum of £103, the commission due to the plaintiff on these items, should be paid by the defendants, and he withheld his final certificate until that arrangement had been accepted by the solicitors on each side, and he never called upon the contractors to pay it. After hearing the evidence of the defendant the judge said he thought the evidence that had been called was in favour of the plaintiff; although called on behalf of the defendants it had entirely failed to support the case, and he therefore directed the jury to find a verdict for the amount claimed, with the sum paid into court, which was done.
In conclusion, let me say that it is wiser and safer to have a clear understanding with your client before having the quantities taken out; there can then no legal question arise as to whose duty it is to pay for them.