For the purpose of showing the ordinary limits of the architect's powers, attention is called to certain acts for which he is not emu powered. In the absence of special authority, the architect has no authority to modify the building contract or alter plans or specifica tions, to extend the time for completion, to change the original contract, to bind his employer for extra work, to accept an inferior class of work, to waive an agreement by the owner as to the terms of payment, to excuse the contractor from any of the provisions of the contract, to employ another to do work which the contractor has undertaken, to substitute another for the original contractor in the performance of the work or the payment therefor, to super vise the letting of sub-contracts and the employment of workmen, or to consider, in making up his statement of the accounts between the owner and architect, any accounts outstanding in other matters between the parties. The architect cannot, without express authority, bind the owner to pay for work or materials. Ile is not the owner's agent for the purpose of receiving notice of an assign ment of payments due from the owner.
Where the architect is for any purpose the agent of the owner, there will, according to the general rule of agency, be various im plied powers necessary to carry out the purposes of the agency. The extent of these will vary with the facts of each case. If the architect acts as superintendent of construction, the powers may be quite extensive. As circumstances may enlarge an agent's powers, an architect might in an emergency be authorized to take extraordinary steps for the protection of the owner's rights or property.
In general, it may be repeated, the architect should be care ful not to exceed his powers, and wherever practicable should have his authority definitely stated in writing. One regard in which architects sometimes exceed their powers may be especially men tioned; that of incurring unnecessary expense for artistic reasons.
Although an architect may have authority in a given case to bind the owner in ordering necessary materials, furnishings or extras, he is not necessarily jnstified in increasing the expense therefor, on grounds of taste.
Contractor's Relation to the Architect. By the ordinary building contract, the contractor enters into obligations with the owner only. To the architect, who is not a party to the contract, the owes no contractual duties which the architect may en force in law or in equity. However, by the contract it may become the builder's duty to the owner to obey the architect's instructions. to do the work to his satisfaction, and the like. These duties of the builder can be enforced only by the owner. Therefore, accord ing to the rights of the owner, the architect may be said to be entitled to obedience as provided in the contract.
Architect's Duty Toward the Contractor. Although the architect is employed by the owner he must act fairly and honestly toward the contractor. This of course precludes any attempt to overreach the contractor, or any secret arrangement with the owner to deprive the contractor of any money justly due hiin.
Thus an architect has been held liable to the builder for dam ages sustained by him by reason of a fraudulent refusal to issue the certificate made essential by the contract. The architect who acts as a superintendent or arbitrator is supposed to act as an im partial man of science. Where it is shown that the architect is personally interested in favoring the owner at the expense of the builder, or vice vei8er, as where the architect guaranteed or merely assured the owner that the whole cost of building would be below a certain suns, it has been held that his awards should be set aside if they are unjust, in spite of the agreement that his decision shall be final and conclusive on all parties.
It is the architect's duty to interpret his plans and specifica tions when such interpretation is requested by the contractor.
Discrepancy in Plans. It sometimes happens that the details in the plans do not agree with the specifications prepared by the architect to go with the plans, or the small scale drawings do not agree with the detail drawings. When this occurs it is necessary to determine which--the plans or specifications, the small scale drawings or the detail drawings—shall prevail. This question arises most frequently after work has been performed according to the plans or specifications, the small scale drawings or the detail drawings, and the other side claims the work does not conform to the provisions of the contract, relying on conflicting provisions elsewhere, Then it becomes necessary to determine which is con trolling. Where there is a discrepancy between the drawings and specifications, or between the small scale drawings and the detail drawings, there is some conflict as to what the order of preference should be. The more general rule, however, is that specifications take precedence over drawings and detail drawings over small scale drawings. This rule must of course give way where in any con tract the provisions indicate a contrary intention. Where there is a discrepancy between two sets of drawings of equal importance It seems well settled that the contractor is bound only by that set which he has seen and on which he has based his estimates. Where the discrepancy is between two different clauses in the specifications the facts of the case control; the question is decided on common sense rather than on technical reasoning.