ARCHITECTS' FEES.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13363, 3 March 1909, Page 7

ARCHITECTS' FEES.

(special to "the pbebs.") AUCKLAND, March 2. In giving judgment in tho Magistrate's Court to-day in a case which involved a question of architects' fees, Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M., stated his intention of submitting his judgment to the New Zealand Institute of Archi.teois, with a view to che adoption of a more <tc finite undeifttauding m tho matter ot profession aJ. practice aaid charges. Tne case in question was tuuu of R. W. De JlontalK v J. \> . fcloa.ro and Co., merchants. Dr. Bamfoitl appeared fcr the plaintiff, and -Ur Pre-i'.deigust for tho defendants. Ihe plainuh: sought to recover from tho cl-elentlaiiti t'xie sum ot A.74 3s 7d as remuneration for professional services in designing ana preparing contract plans and specifications of a warehouse which the defendants proposed to build. Tho eviuonce showed tlhat the defendants, appioved or the plans and gavo instructions for the calling of tenders, but that eventually the contract was let to a tenderer who had uifudrawn his original tender on the grounds of a mistaiten estimate, line plaintiff took exception to tlie action and declined to be a party to the proposed compromise, alleging that it ivouid bo unfair to tho other tenderers. Tine Magistrate remarked that it was admitted that if there had not been a dispute between the parties, and tdio plaintiff's services had been continued till the building as designed by him had been completed, he would have been entitled to commission according to tlie scale of professional charges adopted by tlie New Zealand Institute of Architects, besides advertising and incidental expenses. "In my opinion," continued Mr Kettle, "'as the defendants aid not accept one of the original tenders, the plaintiff was not bound to continue to act a-* their architect. He was, l think, entitled to claim from thorn commission to the time the defendants decided to reject the original tenders and can recover from them under tho scale referred to one half of the comnik-r-.ion for preliminary sketches, drawings and specifications, which were prepared by him before tenders were called for." The plaintiff, the Magistrate said, was also entitled to recover incidental expenses. Concr-rning the plaintiff's right to recover the balance ot his commission according to scale, the Magistrate was of opinion that in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, it was an- implied term or condition of his retainer or employment that if the defendants elected not to accept one of tine original tenders tho pl.intiff would be enii.-kd to full commission for preparing p.ciUniiuary sketches and contrr.ct plans and speeificutioru, etc. Judgment was <jiven for plaintiff for tlie amount ti.-iimod and costs.