Can a city bring a claim against a contractor for the improper use of calcium chloride?

It was then submitted on behalf of the company that through silence the project engineer had acquiesced, and in fact; approved of the use’ of calcium chloride, and that having done so, the city could not now be heard to complain of its use. I have already held that the extensive powers of supervision and direction given to the project engineer were only an option to be exercised if. deemed necessary and advisable; that there was no duty upon the project engineer to exercise these powers. Under these circumstances, the passive attitude of the project engineer, in neither approving nor disapproving of the use of calcium chloride cannot be construed as either acquiescence or adoption. Although the project engineer was advised of the use of calcium chloride, there being no duty upon him to act, the use thereof remained the responsibility of the company: Mayor, etc. of Kingston-Upon-Hull v. Harding, supra. It was a matter which remained Wholly within the skill and judgment of the company and there is nothing which precludes or estops the city from alleging the company’s lack of skill and judgment in respect thereto.