the work completed by the second. I have always felt this to be an unjust result.

Of course, if the plans are wholly changed, the situation is different but, in the usual case, the building, if it has progressed to any real extent toward completion, at the time the architect's services are dispensed with, will be completed substantially in accordance with the general scheme which he had mapped out. While the plans will belong to the architect, if his contract has so provided, it will be quite possible for the owner, as a practical matter and in the ordinary case, to have the building completed by another architect in accordance with the scheme of the architect first employed. Where this is done, the architect who was responsible for the design and plans should most certainly be compensated beyond the amount covering the settlement with him up to the time of the termination of his employment.

For an unjust termination of his employment the architect will have his legal remedy. It is advisable, however, in addition, to have the contract provide that if the work, after it has been abandoned or suspended, is again proceeded with, the architect first chosen shall be in charge of the work to its completion. In the special forms of contract between architect and client, set forth in the appendix, there are included clauses designed to meet just this contingency.

CHAPTER XV.

CONCLUSION.

Legal "Don'ts" for architects.-Definiteness a controlling factor.

On an occasion not long ago, when I was lecturing to the students of the School of Architecture of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the member of the Faculty who introduced me told the following story: He said that he had recently talked with a Boston architect and that, in the course of the conversation, my book on "The Law of Architecture and Building" had been mentioned. He had asked the architect whether he had read it, and the architect had replied "My lord, no. If I were to read that, I should not dare to practice at all!"

I quite understand the feeling which prompted this rejoinder. It is not at all an unnatural one. My main purpose, in my writings and in my talks to architects having been to bring home to them the things in general which they should not do, it is not to be wondered at that this architect should have had the mental reaction which he did. The summarization of legal cautions to architects naturally results in a series of "Don'ts" and when one reads them one naturally receives the impression that they are more contagious than perhaps they really are. The "Don'ts" which an architect must consider and observe are, many of them, vitally and fundamentally important but, nevertheless, if properly considered, they fall into comparatively few and simple classifi

cations. In the main, it will be found that they group themselves under the general headings dealing with the compensation of the architect, his proceedings as the agent of the owner, and his duties as the supervisor of construction.

I am not sure that I can better summarize the more important of the considerations which I have tried, in the foregoing pages, to bring home to the architect, than by leaving with him at parting a list of "Don'ts' applicable to the practice of his profession. If he can fix the following cautions generally in his mind, he should find the conduct of his practice compara tively free from misunderstandings and legal di culties:

The architect should not:

1. Forget that the relationship between the architect and the client is one of trust and confidence and that, on the other hand, the architect is under obligation to deal fairly with the contractor, as well as with the client.

2. Have any conflicting or concealed interest in the contract.

3. Have any private agreements or understandings with the builder.

4. Accept any personal favors from the contractor, placing him under any obligation to the latter. The owner might use the fact that he had done so against him, in a claim for negligence, entirely aside from any question of actual fraud or bad faith.

5. Act without a thorough understanding with the owner as to:

a. The compensation to be paid; and

b. All of the other terms and conditions upon which the architect is to act for him.

6. Proceed with preliminary sketches or any work without first securing, if possible, a written contract from the owner covering the above points.

7. Continue practice without securing a proper form of office contract to be executed by his clients.

8. Make any statements which can possibly be construed as representations or guarantees that the work can be done for any stated amount.

9. Fail to make it clear, affirmatively and by a proper contract, that he does not make such representations or guarantees regarding cost, and that he is to be paid for his services, whether or not the work is proceeded with.

10. Allow a statement by the client, that the cost of the work must not exceed a certain sum, to stand as the basis upon which his work is to be done.

11. Give any orders for extras, alterations, changes or modifications in the work, plans or specifications, without written authority from the owner.

12. Assume that his position as architect gives to him any such authority.

13. Forget that the ordinary building contract requires the written consent of the owner to justify a claim for extras, and that if extra work has been done on the authority of the architect, without a corresponding authorization to him from the owner, the contractor may be able to recover from the architect, while the latter will not be able to secure reimbursement from the owner.

14. Deal with contractors, without making it clear that he is acting purely as architect, and that as such, he is representing and acting for a client, whether the identity of the client be disclosed or not.

15. Ask for bids or accept bids in his own name, or say or write anything to the client which can be construed as making the architect, in effect, the contractor for the work.

16. Allow the contract to be let unless a proper unit price provision is included, which will enable the architect to check the costs and component parts

of the work and materials, done and furnished, as the job progresses.

17. Word the unit price provision so as to enable the contractor to concentrate the items of large expense at the beginning of the work, and so collect from the owner during the early stages of the work the major portion of the contractor's profit.

18. Consider architecture as an art alone, and disregard the fact that the modern practice of architecture is in many ways a business.

19. Undertake to receive and disburse for the owner the monies required to finance the building operation, unless absolutely necessary, and unless he is fully covered by a proper agreement.

20. Mingle the funds of the owner, advanced to him to disburse for the account of the owner on any item, with the funds of the architect.

21. Forget that the ordinary rule is that plans belong to the owner, in the absence of special agreement, and that the architect should have a definite written agreement, providing that the plans shall belong to him.

22. Assume that his employment as supervising architect gives to him any authority to make new contracts binding upon the owner.

23. Without specific authority from the owner: a. Employ any new contractor to do work already undertaken by the contractor originally chosen; or b. Substitute any sub-contractor for the general contractor; or

c. Vary the certificates or orders issued from the form specified in the contract, if a form be so specified.

24. Certify extras or authorize alterations where he has been given specific authority so to do, without keeping strictly within the terms of the authority granted to him.