tions provided in, and to the performance by the contractor of all of the terms of, the general conditions of the contract." The obligation of the contractor to perform, as a condition precedent to his right to receive payment, would doubtless be implied in any case, but it is well to leave as little to implication as possible.

Coming now to the general conditions of the contract proper, sub-division "g" of Article 1 provides that the law of the place of building shall govern the construction of the contract, and by Article 45 the same plan is adopted, with respect to the arbitration scheme provided for, and it is specified that the arbitration procedure shall conform to the laws of the state in which the work lies. In many cases, especially where the owner and the contractor are residents of the same state and where the work is done within that state, there would be no objection to the clause as set forth in the general conditions. If the work is to be done, however, in some other state the owner and the architect, and for that matter the builder as well, should give careful consideration to the matter before agreeing that the laws of a different state shall govern their dealings and determine their obligations. They should at the least, before entering into any such agreement, find out just what these laws may be, how broad they may be with respect to liens and the like, and how they may affect the dealings of the parties.

In Article 5, relating to shop drawings, it is provided that the approval by the architect "shall not relieve the contractor from responsibility for deviations from drawings or specifications unless he has in writing called the architect's attention to such deviations at the time of submission." This provision is dangerous in the sense that the implication from it clearly is that, if the contractor has called the

architect's attention to deviations from the drawings and specifications, the contractor will not be responsible therefore. The architect, in the absence of special authority, has not power to authorize any changes in the plans or specifications or any deviations from the work as therein set forth. The above implication is inconsistent with this rule.

Article 24 of the Standard Documents, it is true, provides that no change (other than as provided in Articles 3, 9 and 18) shall be made, unless in pursuance of a written order from the owner, signed or countersigned by the architect (or a written statement by the architect that the owner has authorized the change), and that no claim for an extra over the contract amount shall be valid unless so ordered. This provision is quite in line with the legal rule to which I have above referred. It is in line, also, with the various cases holding that the owner cannot be bound by changes in the plans and specifications authorized by the architect, but not approved or authorized by the owner.

It would be well it seems to me, if the wording of Article 5 were so altered, therefore, as to avoid any inconsistency, and any misleading interpretation thereof, either on the part of the contractor or on the part of the owner. The owner and contractor have, of course, the right to provide, by the terms of the contract, that the architect may make such changes and authorize such deviations from the drawings and specifications. The general legal rule quoted would not apply, if the contract were drawn so as to give this specific and special authority to the architect. The Standard Documents, however, do not do this and, as pointed out, Article 24 is quite specific in its statement of a contrary intent and understanding.

Article 7 refers to the ownership of drawings and

models. It provides that all models are to be the property of the owner and that all drawings and specifications and copies thereof, furnished by the architect, are to be the property of the latter. This clause must not be assumed to fully protect the architect, for it does not, as it does not go far enough. It recognizes the necessity of a special agreement if the plans are to remain the property of the architect. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is a term of a contract which is entered into between the owner and the contractor, and to which the architect is not a party. The question of the ownership of plans lies, primarily, between the architect and his client. If the architect is to be properly protected on this point there must be an agreement between him and the client, direct, covering the ownership of the plans and specifications.

There is no objection to Article 7 and it is probably advisable that it should be included, so that the question of the ownership of the plans may be clear as between the owner and the builder. The architect should realize, however, that the agreement between these two does not adequately protect him and that, if his right in the plans is to be properly covered, it should be provided for by a separate agreement between him and his client.

Articles 9 and 10 have to do with the status of the architect and the general scope of his authority. Whether they be approved in the standard form, or disapproved, depends upon the personal point of view of the party entering into the contract, and upon the conception which one may have of the proper scope and character of the duties of the architect of today. The effect of these provisions and of Article 45, which should be read in conjunction therewith, is, undeniably, to cut down the discretionary activities of the architect to a minimum, and to leave

all possible questions open for adjustment at arbitration. One good result of this course is that it may lessen, somewhat, the danger of an architect exceeding his authority and incurring liability to the owner, or to the contractor, as a result. Personally, however -and this is purely a personal feeling-I question whether the curtailment of the authority of the architect, as this authority is curtailed by the Articles above referred to, is in the best interests of the profession and its work, or in the best interests of the client.

It has long been customary to provide in the building contract that the architect, in substance, shall have full charge of the work of supervision and that all questions relating to the interpretation of the plans and specifications, and the like, shall be referred to and decided by him. All that the Standard Contract form does is to provide that he shall have personal supervision and direction of the work. The clause does not amplify this statement in any way and the general effect of the wording of Articles 9 and 10 is, certainly, to lessen the usual authority of the architect, in that the various provisions customarily used, in amplification of the phrase that he shall generally direct and supervise the work, are lacking.

It is of prime importance that the architect should not have the idea that he has authority to act for the owner on any point which may arise. Caution on this point is essential. I heartily approve the purpose which underlay, I take it, the framing of Articles 9 and 10, viz.: the desire to make clear the fact that the architect has not a blanket authority and that any special authority, to be properly exercised by him, must be properly and specifically granted. It seems to me that there should be, and that there is, however, a desirable middle course, be

tween the failure to point out the limitations of the architect's status and the narrow construction of his authority as given in the Standard Documents. I cannot help feeling that the work turned out by the profession will be benefited, that the rights of the ordinary client will be better cared for and safeguarded, and that a more satisfactory job will be assured him, if the architect be given, under the contract, a much more general power and discretion, than is provided for, or contemplated by, the Standard Documents.

While believing thoroughly in the settlement of disputes by arbitration, rather than by resort to the courts, I yet feel that it is a mistake to leave too many details open for decision by arbitration. Any arbitration, at the best, involves time, delay and expense. It is, unquestionably, desirable that questions which should not be decided by the architect and which may lead to controversy between owner and contractor, should be settled by arbitration, between the latter two, if and when they arise. It is, I am convinced, equally desirable that as many points as possible should be settled and settled definitely, under the contract, by the architect, whose training and professional qualifications equip him, especially, to deal with them and to decide them with fairness to both parties.

I therefore favor a moderate modification of Articles 9 and 10 and of Article 24 also, in so far as the latter is related to them, so that they may specifically grant to the architect the right to decide questions involving the interpretation of the plans and specifications, and disputes between the owner and contractor, which naturally fall within the classification of points which an architect, by his technical education and training, is specially equipped to handle and to decide.