Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

theless the same-a desire to protect the public from inexpert advice and the desire to raise the standard of the architectural profession. The movement is sound and should be welcomed by the public and by the profession alike.

There will doubtless develop a greater similarity in the registration laws of the different states and a reciprocity, as between the states, under which an architect admitted to practice in one state will be admitted, on application and without further examination, to practice in another state. Where the architect is called upon to do work in a state other than that in which he practices, he must, as matters now stand, thoroughly investigate the laws of the state in which he proposes to practice, before undertaking work within its borders. In this connection, he will do well to consider preliminarily whether the work which he is called upon to do is of such character that his services will result in his being held to be practicing in the other state.

The mere fact that he prepares plans and specifications for a building in another state will not necessarily mean that he is practicing in the latter state. If the plans and specifications, for instance, are prepared in the state where he regularly practices and is registered, and he is not called upon to go into the other state and there supervise the work, he may well claim that his practice has been confined to the state where he is registered. Services which, under the decisions and laws of one state will constitute

practicing architecture, will not in other states be so construed. The decision will depend upon the facts in each case and upon the laws applicable thereto.

In the absence of a statutory provision to the effect that the preparation of plans for a building in a given state constitutes practicing in that state, irrespective of where the plans are prepared, it would seem that the mere use of the plans in the state should not result in a holding that the architect who prepared them is practicing therein, when the plans were prepared without the state. Where, however, the architect, in addition to preparing the plans, supervises the construction of the work, he is far more likely to be held to be practicing his profession in the state where the supervisory services are performed. Even under these conditions, however, he may not necessarily be held to be so practicing. Whether this is the result or not, will depend on the state statutes and the interpretations which the courts have given to them.

A somewhat analogous situation is that relating to the doing of business by corporations in foreign jurisdictions. As a general rule, the statutes of each state provide that a foreign corporation can not do business in the state unless it has filed a certificate to do business therein or complied with the other statutory requirements in this connection. It is surprising, however, how widely the decisions differ as to what constitutes "doing business." The mere sale of

goods in another state is not necessarily doing business in that state. Even where a foreign corporation maintains an office and takes orders in a state, it is, in many cases, held to be not doing business in the state within the meaning of the statute. Architecture is practiced oftentimes today by corporations, and the question of whether a foreign corporation practicing architecture in another state is doing business in that state is accordingly of importance. Here again the rule will depend on the statutes of the particular state involved. The result is likely, broadly speaking, to depend upon two elements chiefly, one the place where the contract is made and the other whether the work is supervised and, if so, to what extent.

Where an architect, individually, or a corporation practicing architecture, is called upon to do work in another state, unless the work is done in the name of a registered architect or the corporation has filed a certificate to do business in that state, it will be well to have the contract for the services made in the state where he or it regularly practices. The contract may provide by its terms that it is made in the latter state. This will not necessarily control, as it will be a question of fact. If, however, the final approval of the contract by the architect is in his home state, and the execution of it by the client in the other state is made wholly subject to its execution by the architect in the state where he practices, the

courts will probably hold that the contract is made in the latter state.

§ 2. Exceptions to Rule.-Unlike the attorney, the architect, if under examination in court, may not, it seems, successfully plead privilege as to communications between him and his employer.2 Nor, it has been held, does he render himself liable in damages by making disclosures of his employer's intention to build, or of the location of the proposed building, provided of course that he has neither agreed to keep silent as to these matters nor been requested by his employer to treat them as confidential.

4

3

The rule allowing the architect to make disclosures of this character, without the incurring of liability, is not, however, sufficiently well established to be considered a safe one to act upon, entirely aside from the ethical questions involved. A case which has been cited in support of the rule allowing disclosure by an architect or engineer of the building site selected by the employer does not seem to warrant its citation in this connection, for the reason that the decision is specifically stated to be applicable to situations where no relations of trust or public confidence exist. So far, certainly, as public officers are concerned, such disclosures have not

2 Wait, Eng. & Arch. Juris., 772.

3 Havens v. Donahue, 43 Pac. Rep. (Cal. Supreme Court 1896) 962.

4 Green v. Brooks, 81 Cal. 328, 22 Pac. Rep. 849.

5 Wait, Eng. & Arch. Juris.,

p. 772.

been viewed with favor. Aside from any technical legal considerations and distinctions, the confidential relationship which exists between architect and client is such that the former should scrupulously avoid any such disclosures. Any abuse of his client's confidence is unethical in any event.

Irrespective of whether his services be gratuitous or not, the rule holds good that the architect must, subject only to the certain possible exceptions, such as the exception relating to privileged communications just noted, necessarily occasioned by the peculiar attributes and customs of each profession, preserve toward his client in all their dealings, the same general attitude as that which characterizes the relationships of physician and patient, and attorney and client.

§3. Absolute Good Faith Required.—It is fundamental that the architect must act for his client in absolute and entire good faith throughout, and in all ways consistently with the trust and confidence which the client has reposed in him.8

• Wills et al. v. Abbey et al., 27 Texas 202; and see Flanikin v. Fokes, 15 Texas 180; DeLeon v. White, 9 Texas 598.

7 People v. Campbell, 82 N. Y. 247.

8 Lewis v. Slack, 27 Mo. Ap. 119; Badger v. Kerber, 61 Ill. 328; Dudley v. Strain (Texas), 130 S. W. 778; McDermott v. Coates, 14 Dom. Law Rev. 401, note; Clark on Architects, p. 94; Wait on Architec

tural and Engineering Jurisprudence, p. 446-7; and see, Henon v. Vernon (68 Pena. Super. Ct. 608), holding that evidence is admissible to show that the architect in collusion with the contractor, allowed the latter to depart from the plans without the consent or knowledge of the owner; and also Nave v. McGrane 19 Idaho, III, V.

« AnteriorContinuar »