legal decisions are cases holding the architect liable on the theory of a guarantee of price on his part. This naturally comes about because one of the primary considerations with the ordinary client is that of expense and the cost of the work. This being so, at the first interview or interviews with the architect, it is inevitable that such a client will ask the architect to tell him for how much the work can be done. This is the danger point. If the architect replies that he believes it can be done for a certain amount, but that he can manifestly only guess and give to the client his best judgment, and if he makes it clear that he does not in any way guarantee that it can be done for the amount which he names, the danger point is successfully passed and there will be no "come-back" against the architect. If, on the other hand, the architect, either in his natural desire to secure a lucrative or interesting piece of work, or thoughtlessly and with the best of intentions and desire to help the client and being convinced in his own mind of the accuracy of his judgment, states that the work can be done for a definite amount it is quite possible that he will so phrase his statement that the court will construe it to be a guarantee on his part that the work will be done for this amount. At the least, it may be construed to be a representation by him made to induce the client to proceed with the work and binding upon him in the event that the client does so in reliance upon it.

The evident intent of the provision in the Standard Form of contract that the estimates of the architect are to be considered as approximations only is to protect the architect, where the cost exceeds his original estimate. I very much doubt, however, if it does so, as I have already indicated.

Suppose that the architect has estimated that the cost of a certain job will be $100,000 and that the

cost proves to be $125,000. In such a case, it is evident that the architect's estimate is not even approximately correct. The inference from the wording of the Standard Form is that the architect, while he does not undertake to forecast the exact cost, does undertake to give the approximate cost. In the foregoing supposititious case, therefore, the architect would not be covered by the wording of the contract, since his estimate had not been approximately correct.

It is of manifest importance that this point of cost and estimates should be made clear, beyond any possibility of ambiguity and misunderstanding. In these days, especially, when no one, not possessed of occult powers, can foretell the trend of labor and material costs, no architect can afford to make any cost estimate, without an absolutely clear and definite understanding that it is his best guess merely, and that, no matter how far wrong it may prove to be, no responsibility shall attach to him as a result of it. It is not a matter of any special difficulty to so phrase the contract that this point will be properly covered and the architect should not sign any contract which does not adequately cover it. Indeed, he should not give any estimates, no matter how informal they may be, unless and until it is understood, without qualification, and confirmed, preferably in writing, that the estimates are not in any sense binding representations or guarantees, no matter how accurate or inaccurate they may be.

If there be no written contract, the architect should by letter, or at the very least, orally, make clear to the client, beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, that he is giving the client his best cost guess only and that it is given for what it may be worth, and without recourse in any way so far as the architect and his relations with the client are concerned.

1

A

Let him choose his words carefully when cost is mentioned. Let him, by office memorandum or otherwise, see to it that the other members of his organization who may come into touch with the clients of the office, are cautioned to exercise a like discretion and to avoid any thoughtless or loose statements which may, months later, reappear, to cause loss or embarrassment to them or to the organization of which they are a part. Let him remember that his compensation is based on the cost of the work and that, from the ethical, as well as the legal, point of view, he must be diligent to avoid giving to the client the slightest ground for feeling that the architect has, by a low estimate, mistakenly or by intent, induced him to proceed with the work, and at the least incur a substantial charge for the plans and for the specifications.

Aside from the duty of thus protecting his own interests and rights, it seems to me that the architect owes a duty to his client to make sure that the latter understands the impossibility of making any exact or approximately exact estimate. The ordinary client is very likely to attribute to the architect powers of divination which the architect does not possess. He is very likely to have the impression that the architect has, as a result of his professional training, acquired the power to foretell costs with substantial accuracy. He has little idea of the inevitability of extras in the most carefully planned undertaking. He should in all fairness be set straight on these points and understand both that the estimate given may be greatly less than the bids received and that, before the work is completed, the original contract cost will have been materially added to, by extra items which no architect or contractor could have foreseen in the first instance.

Any architect who gives an estimate of cost, with

out adequately guarding himself with respect to it, is deliberately courting trouble. If he wishes to do this, he should not underestimate the dangers of the step which he is taking and its potentialities for disaster and loss.

The contract with the client should contain a clause providing specifically that any statements made by the architect regarding cost are not to be construed in any way as representations or as guarantees; that they are made solely for the information of the client and that the architect is not to be held liable in any way, on the theory of guarantee or otherwise, in the event that the cost exceeds the amount estimated by him. This is a perfectly fair provision, and is so worded that no fair-minded client can properly take exception to it. It effectually prevents, however, any danger of loss to the architect on this point. At the same time it is helpful to the client in that the architect, being thus protected, is willing to express himself with much more freedom than he would if he had in mind the necessity of making guarded estimates in the absence of such a contract provision. The client in consequence receives the benefit of estimates which the architect might ordinarily be unwilling to make.

CHAPTER V.

ACTING AS CONTRACTOR OR PRINCIPAL.

Architect should not become involved as contractor or principal or act for undisclosed principal.

There is a somewhat similar but a less common danger in which the architect may become involved, namely, that he may, if his statements to the client regarding the cost of the building are phrased loosely, be held to have assumed himself the relationship and obligations of a contractor or principal. This is not at all a fanciful danger, and is one which, if it come to pass, is calculated to place the architect in a distinctly unpleasant position.

It is but a short time ago that a well-known New York architect consulted me in a case where, innocently and without any intention on his part of assuming any obligations as contractor, he had become involved in this very particular. It all came about because the architect had written a few letters, the legal effect of which he did not consider, and which he quite naturally regarded as merely routine letters incident to the work proposed. A client had come to him with some tentative plans for the alteration of an existing building. After examining them, he had advised that certain changes be made which would improve the general lay-out and scope of the work. The client, as usual, wished to know how much the work would cost. The architect promptly sat down and, in blissful ignorance of the legal effect of his phraseology, wrote a letter by which he meant to state merely the amount which he estimated would