CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18223, 17 October 1922, Page 9

CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT.

i I BUILDERS AND ARCHITECTS. I MATTERS IN DISPUTE. 1 Mr. W. A. W. Grenfell, secretary of tin New Zealand Builders' and Contractors Association, writes at great length on th< question of conditions of contract in replj to a letter on tho subject by the secretarj of the New Zealand Institute of Archi tects. Mr. Grenfell traces the negotiation! between architects and builders since 1904, Referring to the present difference oi opinion, he fcays : A conference was asked for by the builders, and the architects at their annual meeting in 1921 agreed to it being held, but subsequently the executive of the architects stated that it had changed its mind, and stated that it had arrived at the decision that such conferences had outlived their usefulness. In the course of the correspondence the builders were asked to submit for the consideration of the architects the amendments to the conditions desired by the builders, in order that the architects might in the light of the builders' proposals submit their suggestions. It was urged by the builders that representatives of the executive* of the two organisations should meet and mutually exchange proposals, the idea being that when the joint conference was held there should be no surprises and both sides would be in_ a position to debate the questions raised by the proposals. For some unaccountable reason the architects would not agree to this course, and thereafter the builders were informed that conferences had outlived their usefulness and the architects intended to prepare a set of conditions of their own. This they ultimately did, forwarding copies to the Builders' Federation and asking to be supplied within a month with anv suggestions as to their amendments the builders might think desirable. In view of the fact that the present conditions of contraot had well fulfilled their purpose for 12i years, and had proved in the main satisfactory and equitable to all parties, the builders had made it clear all through the correspondence that they were determined that the- basis of .discussion should bo the present conditions of contract, and for that reason they purposely refrained from passing any comments or criticism upon the architects' draft proposals Shortly after receipt of the letter the builders forwarded to the architects particulars of the amendments of the present conditions of contract scraght bv them. With regard to the number of delegates who should be entitled to take part in any conference, the builders' final proposal was that there should be seven from each side, it being pointed out that ten aside were present at the 1910 conference. At one stage the, architects proposed that there should be a conference of three from each Bide, to be held within a few days of the day on which the letter was written. As sucjj a conference was so restricted in numbers and would not permit of the attendance of representatives from other chief centres (each of which desires, and is entitled to be represented), the builders' executive declined the invitation. ; As to the appointment of a chairman, our final suggestion was, that he should be ! appointed either with or without voting power, it being pointed out that the same course could be followed at this conference as was adopted at the last conference, namely, that in case of the vat© being equal on any question, there should be no alteration in the wording of the old clause in the conditions governing the point. The latest step taken by the architects ha 6 been to inform the Builders' Federation that the new set of conditions prepared for them has been adopted and will be used in connection with any contracts let by registered architects after the 16th inst, The architects having thrown down the gage, it has been taken up by the Builders' Federation, which represents a united body of Dominion builders and contractors, who are determined to stand firm for the maintenance of reasonable and equitable conditions under which contracts shall be carried out in New Zealand. We leave it for the public to judce whether the master builders are justified in refusing tif eubi scribe /heir names to a contract that, m- ■ stead 'of giving the right of appeal to 1 arbitration in the manner provided by the New .Zealand Arbitration Act, which has •been the method by which disputes have hitherto been settled, now appoints the architect who is appointed an'* paid by the owner, the sole and final arbitrator in all but one or two matters that may be in dispute in connection with the carrying out ] of a building contract.