laying out and planting of the grounds about the building. Few persons who build for the first time in the country have any idea of the cost of fences, embankments, filling, smoothing,
EXPENSES SUPPLEMENTARY TO BUILDING.
terraces, sodding, gravel-walks, under-drains, flower-beds, trees, vines, bedding-plants, and so on, which they will need before they are satisfied with the appearance of their place. One good authority lays down the rule that a sum at least equal to the cost of the house itself must be spent on the grounds to obtain an attractive result. This would be much too large an estimate for most suburban places, but, whatever is the amount to be devoted to such purposes, the architect should be informed whether the owner intends to include it in the limit of cost which he specifies. In most cases, the architect himself will be a tolerably good guide as to the cost of simple landscape-gardening, and if he and the owner can understand exactly what is wanted, and how much money is to be devoted to each portion of the undertaking, the result, if the architect is competent, and the owner not unreasonable, is almost sure to be satisfactory; for it is generally the case that the more skilful an architect is, the more he can accomplish in the way of convenience, beauty and healthfulness, with a given sum.
WHAT THE LIMIT OF COST ORDINARILY COVERS.
If the owner says nothing about fences, terraces, or grounds, the architect will generally suppose that the limit of cost given him is intended to cover only the bare cost of the building, commonly without screens, outside windows, or any grading or planting beyond the smoothing of the ground within six or eight feet of the building, and dumping the surplus gravel or clay from the excavations in some convenient part of the place, as this is all that it is usual to include in the builder’s contract; and the owner should ask for the additional estimates if he wants them. In any case, however, it should be remembered
INEVITABLE UNCERTAINTY OF ESTIMATES.
that an architect’s estimates cannot possibly be anything more than approximate, as he knows nothing of the combinations of local mechanics, or the approaching bankruptcy of some reckless builder, or of many other circumstances which will greatly affect the price for which a contract can actually be made. In general, his estimate, for work of a sort with which he is familiar, will be pretty near the sum which the building ought to cost with a reasonable profit to the contractor ; but there are many cases where contracts cannot be made on this basis, and the owner must pay what the people who have a monopoly of the business choose to demand, or go without his building; while there are other cases where the work can be contracted for at a price below its proper value, with a mechanic who cares for nothing but to get the job, appropriate all the payments to his own use, and then fail, leaving the journeymen, and the dealers in materials, to get their pay as best they can.
In consequence of these uncertainties, it is universally regarded as unreasonable to hold an architect responsible for strict compliance with the owner’s wishes in regard to cost. It is always open to the owner, if the estimates of the contractors are too high, to moderate his wishes as to the convenience or beauty of the building, and the architect will generally make no charge for helping him to do so judiciously ; but he has no right to dismiss the architect altogether upon this pretext, unless the lowest sum for which it proves to be possible tt build the intended structure exceeds in a considerable degree the amount which was distinctly stated to the architect as the limit of expense to be incurred.
WHAT IS REASONABLE COMPLIANCE WITH LIMIT OF COST.
Just where the line is to be drawn between a reasonable and unreasonable excess of the estimates, or of the actual cost,
MAY BE AGREED BEFOREHAND.
over the limit fixed, is not quite certain. It is sometimes set by agreement at 25 per cent, and this seems to meet with the approval of ordinary people, but the arrangement should be made before the work is begun. After it is completed, and the builder has explained to the owner that all the delays and blunders that have occurred about the building have been entirely due to the fault of the architect, the latter will have more difficulty in reaching an amicable understanding with his employer.
WHAT COURTS THINK.
If he should fail to do so, and the aid of the courts should have to be called in, he will find them tolerably liberal in their ideas of the latitude which should be afforded him in such matters.
The most important case involving this point to be found in our records was decided in Texas. 1
Here an architect was, as he said, instructed to prepare plans for a hotel, to cost “about $100,000.” After the plans were made, the lowest estimate which could be obtained for carrying them into execution was $102,475. The owner then abandoned the undertaking, and refused to pay the architect anything ; and the architect brought suit for the compensation which had been promised him. The owner claimed that the limit which he gave the architect was $75,000, instead of $100,000 ; that, the lowest estimate having exceeded $100,000, he was not bound to pay the architect anything, even on the architect’s own version of the matter; and that the architect omitted to include his own commission of five per cent in the estimated cost, so that the lowest estimate should have been estimated at $107,589.73. The court below instructed the jury that if the owner really directed the architect, as he alleged, to make plans for a building to cost $75,000, and it turned out that it would cost more than $100,000 to carry the plans which were made into execution, the architect could recover nothing for making them ; but if the direction given was to make plans for a building to cost about $100,000, the preparation of plans which would cost $102,475 to execute was a sufficient compliance with the instruction.
ARCHITECT’S FEES NOT PROrERLY A PART OF ESTIMATED
COST.
As to the architect’s fees, and the expense of superintending the building, the court held that they were not properly to be regarded as a part of the estimated cost; but even if they were to be so regarded, the court considered that the total amount, of $107,589.73, would still be “about $100,000,” and the agreement, as testified to by the architect, would have been complied with.
The owner’s counsel appealed from these rulings, but they were sustained by the Supreme Court.
Here, therefore, the Supreme Court thought that if the lowest estimate had been one-third greater than the limit given the architect, the latter could have recovered nothing for his work ; but an excess of about eight per cent, where the limit had been given only as “about $100,000,” was not sufficient to deprive him of his right to his pay.
In an English case, an architect made plans for a schoolbuilding for a board of trustees, who had only £1,350 in their hands to pay for it. 2 After the plans were made, the architect estimated that it would cost £1,545 to carry them out; and he repeatedly assured the trustees that his buildings “ never exceeded the contracts,” unless changes were authorized by the owners themselves. After these plans, and his estimate, had been presented, he suggested some changes, which, he said, he thought could be included in the estimated price. The plans were then submitted to builders for bids, and the lowest bid received was £2,056.
The trustees then told the architect that they should do nothing further about carrying out his plans, and returned his drawings; and he sued them for his pay. There was contradictory evidence as to whether the original plans could have been executed for the sum estimated by the architect, and whether the discrepancy between this and the actual bid arose from the additions and changes made in them ; and the question was submitted to the jury, whether the bids were reasonably
A QUESTION FOR THE JURY IN ENGLAND.
near to the architect’s estimate, so that the trustees ought to have employed him. The jury disagreed on this point, and were discharged, and the case appears to have been settled out of court.
Here, therefore, a jury seems to have found it doubtful whether a discrepancy of nearly one-third between the architect’s estimate and the lowest actual bid was sufficient to deprive the architect of his right to payment for his work.
ESTIMATES IN COMPETITION.
Where the plans are selected by competition, it is very commonly the case that committees are deceived by estimates made
1 Smith vs. Dickey, 74 Tex. 61.
2 Nelson vs. Spooner, 2 F. & F. 613.
EXPENSES SUPPLEMENTARY TO BUILDING.
terraces, sodding, gravel-walks, under-drains, flower-beds, trees, vines, bedding-plants, and so on, which they will need before they are satisfied with the appearance of their place. One good authority lays down the rule that a sum at least equal to the cost of the house itself must be spent on the grounds to obtain an attractive result. This would be much too large an estimate for most suburban places, but, whatever is the amount to be devoted to such purposes, the architect should be informed whether the owner intends to include it in the limit of cost which he specifies. In most cases, the architect himself will be a tolerably good guide as to the cost of simple landscape-gardening, and if he and the owner can understand exactly what is wanted, and how much money is to be devoted to each portion of the undertaking, the result, if the architect is competent, and the owner not unreasonable, is almost sure to be satisfactory; for it is generally the case that the more skilful an architect is, the more he can accomplish in the way of convenience, beauty and healthfulness, with a given sum.
WHAT THE LIMIT OF COST ORDINARILY COVERS.
If the owner says nothing about fences, terraces, or grounds, the architect will generally suppose that the limit of cost given him is intended to cover only the bare cost of the building, commonly without screens, outside windows, or any grading or planting beyond the smoothing of the ground within six or eight feet of the building, and dumping the surplus gravel or clay from the excavations in some convenient part of the place, as this is all that it is usual to include in the builder’s contract; and the owner should ask for the additional estimates if he wants them. In any case, however, it should be remembered
INEVITABLE UNCERTAINTY OF ESTIMATES.
that an architect’s estimates cannot possibly be anything more than approximate, as he knows nothing of the combinations of local mechanics, or the approaching bankruptcy of some reckless builder, or of many other circumstances which will greatly affect the price for which a contract can actually be made. In general, his estimate, for work of a sort with which he is familiar, will be pretty near the sum which the building ought to cost with a reasonable profit to the contractor ; but there are many cases where contracts cannot be made on this basis, and the owner must pay what the people who have a monopoly of the business choose to demand, or go without his building; while there are other cases where the work can be contracted for at a price below its proper value, with a mechanic who cares for nothing but to get the job, appropriate all the payments to his own use, and then fail, leaving the journeymen, and the dealers in materials, to get their pay as best they can.
In consequence of these uncertainties, it is universally regarded as unreasonable to hold an architect responsible for strict compliance with the owner’s wishes in regard to cost. It is always open to the owner, if the estimates of the contractors are too high, to moderate his wishes as to the convenience or beauty of the building, and the architect will generally make no charge for helping him to do so judiciously ; but he has no right to dismiss the architect altogether upon this pretext, unless the lowest sum for which it proves to be possible tt build the intended structure exceeds in a considerable degree the amount which was distinctly stated to the architect as the limit of expense to be incurred.
WHAT IS REASONABLE COMPLIANCE WITH LIMIT OF COST.
Just where the line is to be drawn between a reasonable and unreasonable excess of the estimates, or of the actual cost,
MAY BE AGREED BEFOREHAND.
over the limit fixed, is not quite certain. It is sometimes set by agreement at 25 per cent, and this seems to meet with the approval of ordinary people, but the arrangement should be made before the work is begun. After it is completed, and the builder has explained to the owner that all the delays and blunders that have occurred about the building have been entirely due to the fault of the architect, the latter will have more difficulty in reaching an amicable understanding with his employer.
WHAT COURTS THINK.
If he should fail to do so, and the aid of the courts should have to be called in, he will find them tolerably liberal in their ideas of the latitude which should be afforded him in such matters.
The most important case involving this point to be found in our records was decided in Texas. 1
Here an architect was, as he said, instructed to prepare plans for a hotel, to cost “about $100,000.” After the plans were made, the lowest estimate which could be obtained for carrying them into execution was $102,475. The owner then abandoned the undertaking, and refused to pay the architect anything ; and the architect brought suit for the compensation which had been promised him. The owner claimed that the limit which he gave the architect was $75,000, instead of $100,000 ; that, the lowest estimate having exceeded $100,000, he was not bound to pay the architect anything, even on the architect’s own version of the matter; and that the architect omitted to include his own commission of five per cent in the estimated cost, so that the lowest estimate should have been estimated at $107,589.73. The court below instructed the jury that if the owner really directed the architect, as he alleged, to make plans for a building to cost $75,000, and it turned out that it would cost more than $100,000 to carry the plans which were made into execution, the architect could recover nothing for making them ; but if the direction given was to make plans for a building to cost about $100,000, the preparation of plans which would cost $102,475 to execute was a sufficient compliance with the instruction.
ARCHITECT’S FEES NOT PROrERLY A PART OF ESTIMATED
COST.
As to the architect’s fees, and the expense of superintending the building, the court held that they were not properly to be regarded as a part of the estimated cost; but even if they were to be so regarded, the court considered that the total amount, of $107,589.73, would still be “about $100,000,” and the agreement, as testified to by the architect, would have been complied with.
The owner’s counsel appealed from these rulings, but they were sustained by the Supreme Court.
Here, therefore, the Supreme Court thought that if the lowest estimate had been one-third greater than the limit given the architect, the latter could have recovered nothing for his work ; but an excess of about eight per cent, where the limit had been given only as “about $100,000,” was not sufficient to deprive him of his right to his pay.
In an English case, an architect made plans for a schoolbuilding for a board of trustees, who had only £1,350 in their hands to pay for it. 2 After the plans were made, the architect estimated that it would cost £1,545 to carry them out; and he repeatedly assured the trustees that his buildings “ never exceeded the contracts,” unless changes were authorized by the owners themselves. After these plans, and his estimate, had been presented, he suggested some changes, which, he said, he thought could be included in the estimated price. The plans were then submitted to builders for bids, and the lowest bid received was £2,056.
The trustees then told the architect that they should do nothing further about carrying out his plans, and returned his drawings; and he sued them for his pay. There was contradictory evidence as to whether the original plans could have been executed for the sum estimated by the architect, and whether the discrepancy between this and the actual bid arose from the additions and changes made in them ; and the question was submitted to the jury, whether the bids were reasonably
A QUESTION FOR THE JURY IN ENGLAND.
near to the architect’s estimate, so that the trustees ought to have employed him. The jury disagreed on this point, and were discharged, and the case appears to have been settled out of court.
Here, therefore, a jury seems to have found it doubtful whether a discrepancy of nearly one-third between the architect’s estimate and the lowest actual bid was sufficient to deprive the architect of his right to payment for his work.
ESTIMATES IN COMPETITION.
Where the plans are selected by competition, it is very commonly the case that committees are deceived by estimates made
1 Smith vs. Dickey, 74 Tex. 61.
2 Nelson vs. Spooner, 2 F. & F. 613.