The Architects Position Under the Building Contract

The greatest care should be taken to avoid such questions.

Limit of Cost. Where nothing is said about fences, terraces, grounds or other unusual items, the limit of cost given the archi tect will be supposed to cover only the bare cost of building, usu ally without screens, outside windows, or any grading or planting beyond the smoothing of the ground within six or seven feet of the building, and the removal of the surplus gravel, dirt or clay from the excavations to some convenient part of the premises. The archi tect's fees and the expense of superintending the building are not regarded as a part of the estimated cost. It is, however, far safer regarded as elsewhere to have a distinct understanding between the owner and architect.

Any estimate by the architect of the cost can be approximate only, because the cost depends on so ninny matters which are be yond the knowledge of the architect; for example, combinations of local mechanics, monopolies, approaching bankruptcy of the builder. etc. In view of these uncertainties it is considered unreasonable to hold the architect to a strict compliance with the owner's wishes in regard to cost, and the owner has no right to dismiss the archi tect because the contractor's bid is higher than the limit of cost given, unless such bid is greatly in excess of the limit. In the event of a moderate excess it is common for the architect to aid the owner in modifying the plans so as to come within the limit without making any extra charges for such aid. As to what is a reasonable or uureasonrble excess of the limit fixed there is no established rule. It may, however, be said that the courts are rather lenient to the architect in this matter.

There are two ways of providing for an excess of the estimate over the limit given. One is to provide by agreement before the work is begun that the plans may be returned to the architect and no payment made if the contractor's estimate is more than 2_per cent in excess of the limit. The other way is to make it a condi tion precedent to acceptance of the plans that the contractor's price shall not be above a certain amount. It is strongly recommended that one of these methods should be adopted.

Liability of the Architect.

It has already been stated that an architect impliedly represents himself to be possessed of the skill and knowledge possessed by the average architect in that lo cality. If in fact he does not possess such skill and knowledge, and loss results to his employer because of the lack of such skill and judgment, the architect is liable to his employer for such loss. For a similar reason and in a similar way the architect is liable for damage from his failure to use care, diligence and judgment in the performance of his duties. The mere fact, how ever, that the plans, structure, or work are not absolutely accurate or successful does not make the architect liable to the owner for damage resulting therefrom, for the architect does not guarantee absolute accuracy, perfection, or success. It is only when such inaccuracy or failure is caused by the failure on the part of the architect to have and to exercise the skill, knowledge, or judgment he represents himself as having, that the architect is liable. The damage for which the architect may become liable by reason of his failure to possess or to use the usual skill, etc., may be for the in creased cost of the building duo to remedying his mistakes, or it may be for damage directly caused by the defects in other ways. The fact that the owner was present while the work was being performed does not excuse any neglect on the part of the architect. The owner has a right to rely on the architect's professional knowl.

edge and skill; and if he is so negligent as to allow a building or a part of it to be constructed in a dangerous or doubtful wanner. he is not excused from the liability incurred by such neglect by the fact that such construction was permitted at the request of the owner. Only a valid specific agreement between the architect and the owner to the effect that the owner would hold the architect excused from any liability to him arising from such dangerous or doubtful construction, would relieve the architect of liability to the owner. It is needless to remark that such an agreement would be an extremely dangerous one for an owner to make.