The following oral judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice on November 4, 1959: "Presuming we have jurisdiction, in view of the record, the trial judge must have believed one accomplice at least and therefore it was immaterial that he did not express any view as to the reasonableness of the alleged explanation. The appeal is dismissed.
PETER KIEWIT SONS' COMPANY
OF CANADA LIMITED AND RAY- *May 12,13 MOND
INTERNATIONAL
COM- PANY LIMITED, carrying on business
AE
N1 under the firm name and style of KIE- Feb.22 WIT-RAYMOND (Defendant) .....
AND
EAKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
ON APPEAL FROM THE OF APPEAL
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Contracts-Sub-contractor-Action for breach of contract-Whether item of work covered by contract-Whether change in plana-Whether contract substituted by new and different one-Work done under protest-Whether only price of contract recoverable-Quantum meruit -Whether quasi-contractual recovery-Whether frustration. The plaintiff, who took a sub-contract from the main contractor, the defendant, for a pile driving job, protested that he was being asked to do more than the sub-contract called for. The engineer, who had clearly defined duties under the main contract, insisted that the Locke, Cartwright, Abbott, Martland and Judson JJ. S.C.R.