be involved, but which, as a matter of fact, was so worded as to give some ground for a claim by the client that the architect had offered, as contractor; to do the work for the sum which he mentioned in the letter.

The plan which had really been contemplated was that the client should place the monies necessary to cover expenses in the hands of the architect from time to time as the work progressed; that the architect should attend to the employment of the contractors to do the work and should make payment to them, for the account of the client, from the monies so received, and for his services should receive merely a stated architect's commission. This would have been all very well if the architect had covered himself by a proper letter or contract, but the situation was aggravated by the fact that, in addition to writing the client as he did, he failed to make clear to the contractors the fact that he was employing them in behalf of the client, and carried on his correspondence with them and requested and accepted their bids, in many instances, in his own name. The client almost from the first made changes, some minor and some radical, in the proposed plans and work and, consequently, the cost of the work began to run far beyond the figure originally contemplated. The client, as is sometimes the case, did not understand why making changes in the middle of the work -taking out a staircase here and putting it in there, changing a swell-front to a square-front and vice versa and the like-should affect the cost as it did. The inevitable result was that disagreements arose between the client and the architect. The client, seeking legal advice, was advised to hold the architect responsible as the contractor for the work, on the theory that the architect had assumed this obligation, and that the contractors whom the architect

had employed were really sub-contractors of the general contractor, the architect.

The situation was further aggravated by the fact that many of these same so-called sub-contractors, not receiving the amounts due them because the client refused to advance further monies, manifested a determination to hold the architect responsible as the principal with whom they had dealt. The architect, accordingly, was faced with the danger of losing his fee and of being held responsible as contractor for the performance of the work at a price far below the actual cost. All this was manifestly unfair to him, as he had undertaken the work in the best of faith and had suggested that he let the contracts to the contractors and attend to the payments, for the purpose of saving money for the client. The client did not appreciate this, or if he did appreciate it was not inclined to "play the game," and, as a result, we had real difficulty in working out the situation in such a way as to safeguard the architect and extricate him from the position in which he had placed himself. If he had, in the first instance, drawn up some simple contract with the client the danger would never have arisen, as it would have been made clear at once by the contract that the architect was assuming merely the ordinary obligations of an architect, and was acting as the agent of the client in arranging for the carrying out of the work by the contractors. If the architect had at that time prepared a proper form of contract he would have had no difficulty in securing the signature of the client, the work would have been completed without loss to the architect, and in all probability the client would have remained satisfied.

The claim of the sub-contractors that they had dealt with the architect as the principal was, in part at least, based on solid ground. It is true that they

should have realized that it was a rather extraordinary proceeding for an architect to employ them directly and for his own account. They must have known that, in requesting and accepting bids, an architect acts ordinarily for the client and does not assume, or intend to assume, any personal liability. Nevertheless, here was a case where no mention of a principal was made. The architect, in requesting bids, said nothing from which it could be reasonably implied that he was acting for another. Such implication as there was to that effect had to result from the fact that he was an architect and that architects are not wont to act as principals in this way. It was quite possible, so far as the record showed, that the architect was personally interested in the building as its owner or part owner. It was quite possible that he was acting accordingly for himself and not as a professional man representing a client.

In any event, the result was sufficiently serious. The claims of the sub-contractors amounted to a tidy sum and the unfortunate architect was at the well known and exceedingly unpleasant half-way station between the deep sea and the devil. If the sub-contractors were not paid, they would sue him, with at least a fair chance of recovery. If the architect paid them, he would be admitting his liability to them and might not be able to recover from the principal the amounts so paid. Certainly he would have to go to court to recover it. There was no question but that the moral obligation to pay rested directly upon the principal, who had full cognizance of the steps taken in his behalf by the architect. The principal, however, declined to pay the sub-contractors, manifestly hoping by this method to force the hand of the architect.

It was a decidedly unpleasant situation and the architect was very fortunate in being able to emerge

from it without loss or litigation. The sub-contractors, most of them, were fair-minded men and appreciated the situation, when it was explained to them. The owner finally advanced the money required to meet their claims and the difficulties, so far as their claims were concerned, were thus taken care of.

If the architect had, in any way, made known to the sub-contractors the fact that he was acting for the client-even if he had not mentioned the name of the latter how much of worry and expense he would have avoided! How simple it would have been for him to preface his request for, and his acceptance of, the bids by the words "in behalf of my client, John Jones" or words to that effect.

If he had understood something of the dangers of acting for an undisclosed principal, he would have completed the work without difficulty and without loss. If he had secured about fifty dollars' worth of advice in the first instance, he would have saved many hundreds of dollars in legal expenses, and days of his own time, worth several thousands more. Another example of the stitch in time doctrine and of its special applicability to the practice of architecture!

CHAPTER VI.

SKETCHES AND PLANS.

Payment for preliminary sketches, plans and drawings.Right to payment for successive sets of sketches or plans and for changes.-Delivery and acceptance of plans.-Architect's liability to public for structural defects.-Special work.

The contract, whatever form is adopted, will ordinarily specify the basic rate of commission and that the commission is to be computed upon the total cost of the work. It will doubtless contain also the usual provisions with respect to the instalments in which it is to be paid and the times when the respective instalments become payable.

The payment of the compensation due him, without delay or dispute, is naturally a matter of special importance to the architect. It is important, as we have already seen, that the amount of compensation be fixed by the contract. It is equally important that the architect be fully protected on all of the points which have to do directly with the determination of the final amount of the fee.

It is amazing how many clients, including men familiar with and trained in business dealings, look upon the preparation of preliminary sketches as in the nature of a gamble on the part of the architect. They seem to have the point of view that, when they ask for preliminary sketches or studies, and these are undertaken and prepared by the architect, the latter prepares them as a speculation and on the understanding that, if they are not accepted, the client is under no obligation to reimburse the architect for the time given to their preparation.