INVITATIONS TO COMPETE.
When a person, public body, or corporation advertises inviting architects to send in competitive designs, all designs sent in should conform exactly to the terms of the invitation sent out. If this is not done the design submitted is not entitled to consideration. The common form of advertisement for designs, and the submis sion of designs conforming with the terms of the advertisement. do not constitute a contract. The advertisement is merely a re quest for offers. The submission of the design is an offer, and becomes binding only on acceptance by the party advertising. Although it seems that this party is not bound to accept the design representing lowest bid, it is very desirable for the sake of clear ness, to put into the advertisement a clause reserving the right to reject any or all designs submitted. Of course where the adver tisement is for bids for public work, if a statute or city ordinance required that the work be awarded to the lowest bidder, then the party making the lowest bid may enforce his right to the award. A request for plans is, of course, unlikely to come within such a statute. An invitation to compete may. however. be made in such a manner as to constitute an offer, and give some one of the com petitors a right to hold the persons making the offer bound by a contract. For this purpose, as has already been shown, the plans must exactly correspond with all terms of the offer.
Ownership of Plans. In the absence of any agreement as to the ownership of plans, it is impossible to make any general state ment as to the law on point. Whether the property in the plans passes to the employer, or whether, on the analogy of notes made by other professional men, such as physicians and lawyers, the property in the plans remains in the architect, the right to the use and possession during the construction being in the builder, is a question to be answered only upon examination of the law in each jurisdiction. The tendency of the lower courts of the differ ent states seems to be toward the former view. It is however said to be the almost universal custom in England and the United States for the architect to retain the plans after the completion of the structure. And it is now customary to insert in the building con tract a stipulation that plans shall remain the property of the architect. While this is evidence of the agreement with the archi
tect to the same effect, it would seem desirable that this agreement be expressly made between the two persons interested, the owner and the architect.
However doubtful the actual ownership of the architect's plans may be, it is clear that until they are published, as it is called, that is, given out by the architect so that anyone may see them, no one except his client has the right to copy, reproduce, or otherwise use them, without the architect's permission. This right of the architect not to have his plans used without his permission ceases after publication. Whether plans have been published is a ques tion to be decided on the facts of each case, but it is clear that by selling the plans outright the architect loses all right not to have them used. Where plans are submitted to competition for a cash prize, it has been held that the plans awarded prizes become the property of the party inviting the competition. Whether or not an architect's plans or drawings of a building may be copyrighted is an open question.
Compensation. The architect's legal right to compensation is, of course, a contract right, either under an express contract, if one exists, or under an implied contract. If an express contract fixes the rate of compensation, of course the architect's rights are fixed by that. If there is an express contract which does not fix the amount of compensation, or if there is no express contract covering the employment, the architect's right is to charge so mach as his services are reasonably worth. While from a legal point of view it would be wiser to have the rate of compensation settled by the binding agreement of the parties, it is probable that in most cases of the employment of an architect. the matter of his fees is not expressly agreed upon, and in case of dispute the architect would be left to receive under the implied contract what his serv ices are fairly worth. One reason for this practice is the exist ence of a customary schedule of charges, which architects are Zw customed to demand and to receive for their services. This schedule= is framed by the American Institute of Architects. The influence of this schedule on the question of compensation is an impor tant one.