ARCHITECT'S FEES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20619, 18 July 1930, Page 14

ARCHITECT'S FEES.

DISPUTE OVER AMOUNT. PAYKEL'S BUILDINGS CASE. EXTENSIVE SERVICES CLAIMED. A claim for tho balance of architect's fees alleged to bo due for services in connection with Paykel s Buildings, An/.ac Avenue, was heard in the Supreme Court 1 by Mr. Justice Smith yesterday. The claim was made by Edmund Rupert Morton. architect (Mr. Finlay), against Max Paykel Buildings, Limited (Mr. Northcroft) Plaintiff's case was that in January, 1928, Pavkcl's Buildings had been recently erected, and the defendant, Max Paykel was dissatisfied with certain phases of tho architect's design, with tho nature and quality of parts of tho work done by the contractor, and with tho architect's supervision and general performance of his duties. He therefore engaged the plaintiff to report upon tho building, and upon any defects appearing in its design or construction, and to advise tho defendant company, which agreed to pay him £IOO Plaintiff examined tho building and supplied a report, and the company instructed and retained him to act in its interests. Preparing Legal Case. Tho defendant company commenced Supremo Court litigation against its architect, and plaintiff was called on to devote much time and attention to tho preparation of the case, continued the statement of claim. In addition to tho fee of £IOO, plaintiff charged £663 13s for his professional services over a period of 369 hours at £l2 12s a day. Against this the defendant had paid £175. leaving a balance now claimed of £SBB. Tho defendant, in answer, said he had paid £350 to tho plaintiff for his services, and claimed that this was ample remuneration. Mr. Finlay said ono of the questions was whether there was a special contract with respect to the original report. If so plaintiff was entitled to his £IOO. With regard to tho other charge, it was on a basis of 12 "iiineas a day, which did not seem verv much for a professional man. Ibo chargo was justified because tho defendant had known it was being made; it was justified by tho fees charged by other architects for similar wofk, and it was justified by the scale of charges which had legislative authority. " Most Distasteful " Work. Plaintiff said that when ho was being engaged jy Mar. Paykel, tho managing director of the defendant firm, ho told Mr. Paykel the work would be most distasteful to him. His fee would be £IOO. If there was less work in it than he expected ho would charge less. In tho result there was vastly more work than he anticipated. liie building was a sovcn-stoioy one, the whole cost with minor contracts being about £42,000. lo make a full inspection of the building would have taken fully a week of continuous work, and thereafter it would have taken fully another week to prepare the report. Plaintiff said ho made the most exlonsive and most exhaustive report possible. The position between the architect and the owners was somewhat strained. Plaintiff detailed his part in legal negotiations between Mr. Paykel and the architect, and said he had to bear the. whole brunt of tho preparation of the technical ; side of the case himself. The writ was issued on his report, and as a result of his work ttio defendant got a settlement, and got remedial work completed. Wellington exports agreed with his report in its entirety. An Old Partnership. In cross-examination, plaintiff said he had been in partnership for about 10 years with Mr. Patterson, the architect involved in the Paykel's Buildings litigation. That partnership had been dissolved about 15 years ago. He denied that the two had parted on bad terms, or that, he had avoided his ex-partner. He had no feeling against Mr. Patterson, but he told Mr. Paykel something of tho circumstances of the breaking-up of the partnership. Mr. Northcroft: Do you not remember in discussing tho caso with mo telling rr.e that Mr. Patterson had taken unfair advantage of- you ? Witness: That aspect of it # was discussed. Were you in the ordinary relations of two brother professionals in the same town or will you not admit that there were strained relations between you throughout ?—I would not say there was a strained relationship. Would you say there was ordinary cor- ' diality ?—lnasmuch as we recognised. Was there ordinary cordiality?— Yes. I did consider he had treated me unfairly, but I did not let. that enter into this matter. Did you ever (ell Mr. Paykel yon were glad of this opportunity of getting ! square with Mr. Patterson ?—Never. I / would not use words like that. 1 Complaints and Criticisms. ] Plaintiff said he wns surprised when , he first heard that Mr. Patterson was resentful about his having'been called in to inspect The result of his report was tho compilation of a list of 78 items of complaint and criticism. In consultation t with Mr. Patterson, Mr. Robertson, quan- , tity surveyor, from Wellington, agreed j to stiike out 50 of these items Plaintiff j donied that he had expressed any wish . that, Mr. Patterson should be forced into -j Court fir "brought to book." He was v , not aware that he was in Mr Pavkcl's | of fife so often that Mr. Paykel complained that he was a positive nuisance* and liin- ! flr.'-.nce. Ho never went without definite I object. j.j Plaintiff was cross-examined very closely as te many items in his account. He de '' ti'ed that he had ever attended inter views at which he was neither invited noi la teed If he charged fully for all tho time he actually spent his bill would havo II been nearer £ISOO than £750. During the same period he had done other work for Mr Paykel, for which he receiver; S £f;~;V The cross-examination had not concluded when lhr> Court rose for Ihe day, FurI her evidence will be heard to-day. i-