Wadsworth vs. Smith, 6 L. R. Q. B. 332. 174 | Cassation, 15 juin, 1863.. 216 154, 270 Worsley vs. Wood, 6 T. R. 710.. 175 Watson vs. Ambergate, 15 Jurist, 448.. 26 Commune de Colombier-Saugniere vs. Wells vs. Horton, 4 Bing. 40-43... Duchez et Savoye, Dalloz, 1883, Williams vs. Cowardine, 4 B. & Ald. 621. 3-92.. Williams vs. Fitzmaurice, 3 H. & N. 844...... 60 18 83 Costansin vs. Duperche, Dalioz, 1874, 1-285.. Dalloz, 1849, 2–171. 129 ཙ ྱ ླ ARCHITECT, OWNER AND BUILDER BEFORE THE LAW. THE CHAPTER I. THE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER. WHERE is an old proverb, that "he who undertakes to be his own lawyer has a fool for his client"; and if one who essays to be his own architect usually purchases at a very high price a very imperfect knowledge of some portion of the art of building, the man who imagines that by reading a few lawbooks he will be enabled to get the better of his less instructed fellow-citizens is likely to have his illusion removed still more suddenly and unceremoniously. Nevertheless, as by knowing something of the art of construction persons of intelligence are led to greater respect for those who devote their lives to the study and practice of that art, and, by understanding their counsels better, derive greater benefit from their services, so may a layman, by knowing something of the legal rights and responsibilities which belong to his position, be enabled to avoid the misunderstandings which lie at the bottom of nearly all business disputes, at the same time that he is forewarned against the errors by which he will incur the penalties of neglect of duty, and fortified, if necessary, in his endeavors to resist intentional fraud, or to enforce just claims. Among all the business relations which men enter into, there are none, perhaps, more complex than those which are involved in the construction of a building, by the coöperation of a multitude of contractors, journeymen, and dealers in materials, under the supervision of an architect, for the owner of the land on which the building is erected, who is also the employer Why the Architect should know Something of Law. The Architect's Employment. of the architect; and it speaks more for the general honesty and good faith with which such operations are carried on than for the prudence of the persons who engage in them that there are hardly any two classes of men whose legal status, in regard to other people, is so undefined as that of architects and builders. Of these, the architects seem to have had the least occasion to appeal to the law in defence of their rights. Perhaps a million building contracts, taking the world over, are carried into execution every year, and it would be strange if, out of all these, disputes enough should not arise to make the list of building cases decided in the courts a tolerably long one; but architects are not only less extensively employed than builders, but appear to be even more peacefully inclined, and cases to which architects are parties are rare. For this reason, much that relates to the legal position of architects must, for want of judicial decisions bearing precisely on' the point, be inferred, or at least illustrated, by the comparison of cases belonging to the history of somewhat similar professions, yet, scanty as is the material for fixing his exact relations to other persons, the architect is so important a factor in building contracts carried out under his care that it is best to begin by defining those relations as carefully as circumstances will allow, taking up first the mutual duties and obligations of the architect and his client, the owner of the future building, and afterwards those which exist, or may, under certain conditions arise, between the architect and the builder. An architect may be employed in two different ways to render professional services. He may be hired, at a given salary, payable by the day, or week, or month, or year, to perform certain duties, or he may be simply engaged to do a certain piece of work, either for a fixed sum, expressed or implied, or, as is more usual, for a small percentage on the cost of the construction carried out under his charge. His engagement to render service in either of these ways forms the subject of a contract between him and his employer, and as it is upon this contract that he must rely for obtaining his compensation, he cannot be too careful to have the terms of the agreement clearly understood by both parties. In consideration of the liability of the human memory to error, and to prevent innocent persons from being imposed upon by people professing to have claims against them, founded on long-forgotten conversations, the laws of all civilized countries provide that no court shall recognize, or assist in enforcing, any agreement for services which are not to be performed within one year from the time of the making of the agreement, unless the agreement, or some memorandum of it, shall be in writing, signed by "the party to be charged," that is, by the one from whom payment is sought. This rule is strictly applied in the case of hiring salaried employés, and when a man is, let us say, appointed city architect, or engaged as assistant engineer, "for one year from the first of next month," or "for twelve months from the beginning of the next financial year," he may be dismissed, without fault on his part, at any time before the expiration of that period, and will be without redress, unless he can show a contract, or a memorandum of his appointment, or some other unmistakable evidence of the terms of the understanding between him and his employer, expressed in writing, and signed, in some manner satisfactory to the court, either by the employer or by an authorized representative. There are many instances of the application of this rule, which is one of the sections of the Statute of Frauds, and appears, in nearly the same words, in the statute-books of all our States, as well as in those of other countries; but one or two illustrations will be enough. In a certain case a land-owner, on the twentieth of July, hired a steward, agreeing verbally to employ him for a year, but allowing him a few days to make arrangements for his change of place. The steward entered upon his duties on the twenty-fourth of July, and afterwards found occasion to call upon his master to perform his part of the agreement, but failed, the court holding that the contract of hiring was void under the Statute of Frauds, for want of writing. So where a Engagement for services which cannot be completed within a year must be in writing. |