A construction company engaged in the building od a roadway and associated structures including an aqueduct contracted with te electricity board for the supply of electricity to operate batching plant. During the course of building the aqueduct, which required a continous pour operation, the batching plant stopped working. In an action of damages for breach of contract brought by the construction company against the successors of the electricity board, it was established that the electricity supply had been interrupted and that the interruption was a breach of contract by the electricity board. The construction company claimed the cost of demolishing and rebuilding a substantial part of their construction works, this having been rendered necessary by the interruption of the electricity supply and the consequent interruption of the required continuous pour. After proof, the Lord Ordinary found that the defenders had not known of the need for a continuous pour, nor that it would not si