THE BUILDERS' AND ARCHITECTS DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6573, 11 December 1882, Page 6

THE BUILDERS' AND ARCHITECTS DISPUTE.

Is* Saturday's issue a correspondent suggested that the Auckland Institute of Architects and the Builders' Association should each surrender their respective sets of building conditions aud accept those which gorern the London building trade, and thus get rid of the unhappy dispute which has arisen between them. In reply to that the undermentioned firms send the following note:—"Allow us to thank your unkupwn correspondent for the valuable suggestions thrown out in Saturday morning's issue for the settlement of the dispute now existing between the architects and builders. We think it a reasonable solution of the ditticulty, and we beg to state that we are quite prepared to adopt the London conditions in their entirety,—We are, 4c., R. Keal.s and Son, Edward Mahonky and Son, Edwakd Baktlet, P. HKRArATn andSon.s, HknkyU. Wade, W. F. Hammond, E. Bki-l, and W. J. Dalton." We do not know anything about the conditions referred to, but »ve think it would be well if the builders would look at them with a view to an agreement if possible. The dispute is affecting a large number of persons besides those in the two professions now at loggerheads. Upon this subject Mr. Thomas Colebrook, Newton-road, writes:—"Sir, —Allow me a few remarks with respect to the proposed change of the architects aud their conditions. Will theyaNo announce through your columns that they are prepared to settle all extras according to the London Price Book, with, say, 50 per cent, added ? That would not be too much, seeing that we have to pay double for almost everything here. Sir, the tiling is too thin to hoodwink any person of common sense. The whole of the London conditions will not apply here. Why should they want them in their entirety? Our conditions are compiled principally from them by a committee of ten men fully competent for the task, and the architects have in their last letter acknowledged their inability to find any fault with them, except that they come from the builders, even though they were revised by a member ol one of our best legal firms; and clause '24, which they thought proper to insert, I still think one of the most necessary. Let the employer see that his architect does prepare all the plans and details necessary n r the work, and then he has nothing to fear. And let him see that the architect does not leave it, like one plan I had lately, in whieli no section of excavation was shown, and yet the contractor was to excavate the whole allotment to a proper and sullieient depth, anil properly lay all drain-pipes, 4c., without saying whether 10 feet or 10,000 feet were required, or giving the size of the allotment to be excavated. Or like another one, that of a proposed building in Queen-street, in the specification of which it was stated that a verandah was to be built exactly the same as Mr. Rattray's. Now, I ask, how are contractors to go down Queen-street at, say, ten o'clock at night and measure Mr. Rattray's verandah? I could 1 mention several more just such instances, and I ask how are men to make up their tenders on conditions of that kind? Till the employer finds that he is responsible for such wilful neglect of duty (and duty for which the architect is well paid), will the architects continue to do the same. The employer should also see that every detail is prepared before the tenders are called and signed at the time of signing the contract, and I would have it eleariy understood that every detail received on the job after that was an extra, and to bo paid for as such. The employer is responsible for the neglect of his employes, and he has his remedy against them, having the money in his own hands. I had intended touching upon a few other things, but perhaps it is better to leave them for the present, and see how things will turnout."