causes combined. The architect may be a genius. He may possess all the artistic and mechanical ability and training in the world. He may have the most charming of personalities and very unusual opportunities to make it felt. Yet, if he has not acquired the faculty of being definite, he will sooner or later, if his practice be on a really worth while and successful scale, experience difficulties which will cause him embarrassment, worry and substantial financial loss. "Be definite" should be the watchword in the office, and throughout the organization, of every architect who would avoid disputes with his clients, disputes between his clients and the contractors, disputes between the contractors and his own organization, and the danger of loss and entanglement in litigation.

If one trace the course of an architect's dealings with his client in a typical case, one will find that, beginning at the first interview and continuing through the selection of the site, the preparation and submissions of sketches, plans, working drawings, specifications and details, and the general supervision of construction, not a step is taken which can be safely taken on any basis other than one of definite and complete mutual understanding. If you were to tell the ordinary business man that he should be sure that everything is understood thoroughly, in putting through a business deal involving the payment of large sums of money, he would in all likelihood think that you were mildly insane in thinking that he might pursue any other course. And yet, if you suggest to the ordinary architect that, in his first interview with his client, or at least at the interview at which he is finally employed and told to proceed with the work proposed, the matter of the compensation to be paid him and all of the other important elements involved in his employment should be discussed, made clear and decided upon, the chances are about ninety-nine

to one that he will tell you that he cannot discuss these subjects with his client at that time, without creating a wrong impression and, quite possibly, losing the job in prospect. I can quite understand how the architect may feel that this is so but, as a practical matter, I am clear that the difficulty which he fears is, in the very great majority of cases, wholly imaginary, and that the client would, indeed, much prefer to start out with a full understanding of all the fundamental rights and obligations involved. I believe that he will not think less of the abilities of his architect because the latter desires to place his dealings upon a clear and business-like basis, and that his mental reaction will, on the contrary, be distinctly favorable to that architect who approaches the job on the basis of an accurate and thorough understanding.

It must be remembered that, from the point of view of the client, the building of a house is primarily a business undertaking, and his relations with the contractor and architect alike are business relations purely. He employs the architect, it is true, as an expert trained to give him both a pleasing result and a house suited to his particular requirements, but he nevertheless regards, and quite properly regards, his relations with the architect as business relations, in the sense that the professional relationship involved is upon an ordinary business basis. The client does not resent, and rather welcomes, the desire of the contractor to have everything clearly understood before the work is undertaken. There is every reason why he should welcome a similar attitude and desire on the part of his architect.

If a customer desires to buy some commercial product, he will wish to know the terms upon which it will be sold; if he desires a portrait painted, he will wish to know how much the artist will charge

for painting it. So, if a client desires to have plans prepared for a country home and to have the erection of the house supervised by a trained architect, there is every reason in common sense why he should prefer to know the basis upon which the architect will charge and the other terms and conditions, both as respects the rights of the architect and his own rights, upon which the work will be undertaken and carried to completion. I am glad to say that there has recently been evident an increasing and very gratifying tendency on the part of architects to appreciate the fact that this is so, and to exercise a much greater degree of care in arriving at a fair and full understanding before undertaking the work.

Aside from the contract, which is the chief matter of importance, the obvious method of being definite is to cover, by letters or memoranda, all points which should be safe-guarded and made matters of record. A word of caution should be added, however, with respect to the danger of too free letter-writing. It is unquestionably desirable to cover in written form the important points as they arise. It is equally important that the letters and memoranda be prepared and used with discretion and with proper care.

Just as there is a tendency on the part of many architects to neglect putting anything in writing, so there is a tendency on the part of many others to write too much. I have in mind repeated instances in my practice, where architects have courted trouble and become involved in expensive and annoying entanglements and misunderstandings, solely because they have been too ready letter-writers. As between writing no letters and writing too many, without proper thought of the effect of what is written, I should unhesitatingly choose the first alternative as the lesser of the two evils.

The golden mean is to write letters only when

they are necessary to make definite your relations with your client or with the contractor, or some issue involved in the relationship between the contractor and the client. There are cases where it is imperative that a proper letter be sent covering some of these points. Where this becomes necessary, however, it is of prime importance that the letter be prepared and phrased with care and that you secure proper advice regarding it, before it is mailed. In other words, cut out all unnecessary letters, put your emphasis on those that are necessary, see that they are sent in time and in proper form, and that they are correctly worded from the point of view of your own interests and the interests of the client.

It is quite natural that an architect, unacquainted with the law and the technicalities of the legal construction of what is written, should write, in many cases, letters, the legal effect of which is entirely different from the real intent and purpose and understanding of the writer. A phrase which, to the architect, may seem entirely innocuous, or a phrase which may connote to him a certain conclusion, may have, and often has, a very different meaning and effect, when considered from the point of view of the lawyer or the court. The letter may contain, legally speaking, an admission which binds the architect in some way, and to an extent, which he has not intended or contemplated at any time.

As an example: it may be taken as a guarantee by the architect that the cost of the building will not exceed a certain amount, when, in fact, all that he has meant to do is to give to the client a statement of his best guess regarding cost. It is very easy in the phrasing of what you write, unconsciously to slip across the border line which divides a direct representation on your part, that the cost will be limited to a certain figure, from a mere estimate on

your part of what the cost will be, based on your experience and general knowledge, but not intended in any way as a guarantee that your figures are accurate or that the cost will fall within the upset figure which you give. Similarly, in the case of dealings with sub-contractors, a letter may be intended to accept a bid and close a contract, in behalf of the client and, by a failure to make clear the fact that the architect is acting as the agent of the client, may bind the architect, as principal, so that the subcontractor, in case of the default of the client, may look to the architect for his compensation. The architect will do well to consider the potentialities for disaster which characterize situations such as these.

The architect may, again, write to the client, stating that he will proceed under the Schedule of charges of The American Institute of Architects, or of the New York Society of Architects, or of some similar body. He may have in mind, when he does this, the fact that his basic rate is to be more than the minimum rate prescribed by the Schedule of Charges of the Institute or of the Society, but he may fail to mention his basic rate in his letter, and he may find that, by phrasing his letter as he has, he is limited to the minimum rate set forth in the Schedules.

Only a short time ago, I represented an owner in a dispute with an architect, where the architect had written a letter confirming his employment and stating that his charges would be based on the Schedule of the American Institute of Architects, when, in fact, he had reference to an entirely different schedule. The owner proceeded on the assumption that the architect meant what he said and, when the architect's bill for a larger amount than that specified in the Schedule of the Institute came in, he naturally objected to paying it. The re