The ratio decidendi of The Heron II was accepted and explicitly followed by the House of Lords in Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power plc [1994] SLT 807. The case concerned the construction of an aqueduct as part of the Edinburgh city by-pass. In order to carry out the work, Balfour Beatty entered into a contract with Scottish Power for the supply of electricity to the site. At a critical moment in construction, the electricity supply ceased, and the concrete being poured began to harden. The break in supply was greater than 30 minutes, with the consequence that the poured concrete could not be added to after the supply of electricity resumed as there was a chance that the aqueduct would not be watertight. The poured concrete had to be demolished and re-poured. Balfour Beatty claimed damages for breach of contract. The issue was whether the loss was too remote. In finding for Scottish Power, the House of Lords held that the crucial question was whether the demolition and reconstruction of the aqueduct consequent upon the failure of the power supply was within Scottish Power's contemplation as likely to occur with a 'very substantial degree of probability'. In answering that question in the negative, their Lordships stated (applying Hadley v Baxendale and The Heron II) that Scottish Power could not be expected to know the technical details of concrete construction. They had no reason to be aware of the importance of time in the process of pouring, and as a consequence could not be liable. The court did not find it necessary to say whether Parsons correctly stated the law or not.