"Thirdly, if the arguments addressed by the builder are correct in relation to works of a public nature, such as dams or major road works, where traditionally such public works do not yield a cash flow, or any cost of capital incurred in the works is, for instance in the case of a dam related to a water supply, to be recouped over a defined period of time at a defined interest rate, delay in completion of construction would simply defer commencement of that recoupment period such that it could be said, on one view, that delay caused the proprietor no loss. Conceptually I do not think it is correct to say that public works, because they may not yield a cash flow, cannot result in damages to the state or public authority if delay in construction occurs. Whilst the example may be peripheral to the one being here considered, it demonstrates that, at least in some instances, an appropriate measure of liquidated damages is the cost of capital tied up for the period of delay. I regard it as an inadequate answer, in the case of a public work, to say that if the work were delayed say six months, no damage is suffered, and no liquidated damages could be validly agreed, because there was no delay in receipt of cash flow, and there was mere deferment of a planned recoupment of capital and interest costs over time."