Bagley v De Kok [1912] ZAWLD 13 (1 May 1912)

Work and Labour-Remuneration-Architect's Certificate-Condition Pecedent-Reservation in Certificate-Contract-Construction-Altering Punctuation.

Where the granting of a certificate by an architect is a.
purely ministerial function, the producti"on of a certificate
is not a condition precedent to the recovery of payment.
In the constritction of a clause of a building contract,.
where it was doubtful whether an architect's certificate
was required for all payments or only for some, the Court varied the punctuation by inserting a colon so as to make the clause conform to the ordinary terms of building contracts which require an architect's certificate for all payments.
An architect's certificate certifying for payment contained
the words " it is understood that certain small items are at once completed to the owner's satisfaction." The said items were of a trivial character: -
Held, that the said words should be read as a reservation and not as a condition, and did not prevent the certificate being regarded as final (McCarthy vs.Visser, 22 S.C. 122, followed.).