L EGAL RESPONSIBILITY
SegaI 12esponsibiIí,tg of Brcbiteets.
37 to the work, otherwise an architect could seldom supervise more than one building at a time. In giving his verdict, Mr. Justice Channell, "could not help seeing that the dry-rot was brought about by collusion between the clerk of works and the builder.The witnesses had agreed that in matters of detail the clerk of works had to see what the architect could not be expected to see. The architect knew, however, that this flooring was a very important matter, and that he must see that it was done pro- perly. If the defendant had taken steps to see that the first block was done all right, and had left the rest to the clerk of works, that they were to be done in a similar manner, he would have had some doubt whether defendant was liable. He did not think that the excuse of the architect, that he thought the clerk of works would see that the floor was all right, was suf- ficient. It seemed to him that the laying of the floor was not a detail which could justifiably be left to the clerk of works;
it was a matter of design. He thought that on the agreement to put the matter right the plaintiffs would also have succeeded.
He was sorry to give judgment against the defendant, who had behaved exceedingly. well, and had given his evidence in a very proper way. It was a very unfortunate thing for the defendant."
This is a far-reaching judgment, the importance of which cannot be over-estimated. For smaller jobs upon which no clerk is employed, the sole responsibility for sound construction ad- mittedly rests upon the architect, but where a clerk of works is constantly upon buildings of larger class, there is a general feeling in the mind of architect and owner alike, that there will be a square and honest deal by the exercise of eternal vigilance.
We have some knowledge of clerks of works, and have long con- sidered them an able and honest body of men, who are not on the works as mere detectives, but who take a hand in setting out work, and in the prevention of mistakes ; thereby helping both architect and contractor alike. That they should be well paid goes without saying. "If," as "The Architect" says, "the clerk of works, through incompetence, inattention or intent, permits a deviation from the contract, and trouble ensues, so that the
[employer
Zegai responstbtIítp of architects.
employer suffers damage, the architect, and not the clerk of works, is responsible for damage."
This raises the question of remuneration. The R.V.I.A.
schedule of professional charges distinctly states that "the archi- tect's inspection of the work in progress is general only, and where more than this is necessary, a clerk of works (approved of by the architect) should be appointed, the salary of such per- son being paid by the employer independently of the rates of payment" previously defined. The charges which are paid by the great majority of clients do not adequately remunerate the archi- tect for his services. Rightly or wrongly, the man in the street understands that 5 per cent. is the architect's fee for all classes of work, in large and small contracts alike. It is obvious that with this judgment in front of us, 5 per cent. is not enough to provide the minute inspection which is demanded. For the in- spection cannot be delegated to assistants; it must be performed by the principal himself—at least in Victoria—where the works usually on hand do not provide for the maintenance of a large staff of highly trained assistants. Even when a period of pros- perity is being enjoyed, and almost any salary is offered. for the services of highly paid assistants, such assistance cannot be pro- cured, either in Melbourne or Sydney. It seems to us that the extent to which an architect can give a particular work his services should be exactly stated, and that when the question of supervision is being settled, the client should know exactly what call he is entitled to make on the architect's time. We have seen clients who might have slept on the architect's door-mat, so constantly were they in the office on the most trivial matters.
A consultation fee, such as a solicitor charges, would be the best antidote for such over-attention. The American Institute of Ar- chitects has recently adopted a minimum scale of 6 per cent., and finds this by no means an over-adequate charge. The archi- tect in Victoria has largely to prepare his own drawings, write his own specifications, and personally supervise the erection of his buildings, all along the line exercising highly trained skilful- ness, which, if he fails to exercise, may land him into heavy payment in the law courts, and his remuneration should be proportionate to his responsibility.