An example of such special circumstances is to be found in Balfour Beatty
Construction (Scotland) Ltd v. Scottish Power plc (1994). In that case the pursuers were engaged in the building of a roadway and associated structures, including an aqueduct. They contracted with the defenders’ predecessors for the supply of electricity to operate a concrete batching plant. The construction of the aqueduct required a continuous pour operation. In the course of the construction of the aqueduct, the batching plant stopped working. It was established that the electricity supply had been interrupted and that the interruption was a breach of contract by the defenders’ predecessors. The pursuers claimed the cost of demolishing and rebuilding a substantial part of their works, this having been rendered necessary by the interruption of the electricity supply and the consequent interruption of the required continuous pour. It was established that the defenders’ predecessors had not known of the need for a continuous pour. The Lord Ordinary concluded that the need to rebuild part of the works as a result of the interruption of the continuous pour had not been within the defenders’ reasonable contemplation and the action failed. Ultimately, the House of Lords upheld the decision of the Lord Ordinary. Had the special circumstances, namely, the need for a continuous pour, been known to the defenders, it is likely that the pursuers would have succeeded.