engineering

Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd

Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd is a engineering topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd rather than just read about it. In short: Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr and Co Ltd [1918] AC 119 is an English contract law case, concerning the frustration of an agreement. Facts In July 1914, Dick, Kerr & Co agreed to build a reservoir in six years for the Metropolitan Water Board (London).

Key takeaways

Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd belongs to engineering; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr and Co Ltd [1918] AC 119 is an English contract law case, concerning the frustration of an agreement.

Facts In July 1914, Dick, Kerr & Co agreed to build a reservoir in six years for the Metropolitan Water Board (London). The contract said that Dick, Kerr & Co should apply to the engineer for an extension of time in the event of delay "whatsoever and howsoever occasioned". Two years later on 21 February 1916, due to the war, the Ministry of Munitions ordered Dick, Kerr & Co to stop work and sell their plant. The MWB subsequently sued Dick Kerr to complete the reservoir.

Judgment The House of Lords held that the contract was frustrated, because the delay clause was intended to cover temporary difficulties, and not such fundamental changes in the contract's nature.

See also English contract law Frustration in English law

Notes

References

Illustrations

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In engineering, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd

In research: Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd appears in engineering research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 1918 in British law, 1918 in case law, English contract case law, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd in simple terms?

Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr and Co Ltd [1918] AC 119 is an English contract law case, concerning the frustration of an agreement. Facts In July 1914, Dick, Kerr & Co agreed to build a reservoir in six years for the Metropolitan Water Board (London).

Why does Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd matter?

Because it connects several engineering ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co Ltd.