out the building, and those who limit their operations to the former can skip the law on the latter.
  I have great pleasure in availing myself of Mr. Arthur Cates' permission to print here what he describes as
 The Surveyor's Decalogue.
 1. That, when tenders are required from a number of builders for the erection of a building, it is essential that bills of quantities should be prepared, in order that each of them may make his tender on exactly the same basis.
 2. That, in the absence of special instructions to the contrary, it is the duty of the architect to make the necessary arrangements for the providing of such bills of quantities.
 3. That, for this purpose, the architect is the agent of his client, and the client is bound by his acts, whether cognizant or not of them or of the custom.
 4. That, until a tender is accepted, the client is liable to the surveyor so appointed by the architect for the amount of his commission, and the expenses incurred.
 5. That, on the acceptance of a bona-fide tender, the liability to the surveyor shifts from the client to the builder; the surveyor accepts the builder as responsible to him, and his right of claim against the client ceases.
 6. That, if the work is abandoned before a tender is accepted, the client pays the surveyor; if after, the accepted builder pays, and has his remedy against the client.
 7. That, as a matter of convenience, it is the custom that the architect should include, and it is an obligation on the architect so to include, in his forst certificate such reasonable charges and expenses of the surveyor; but the liability of the builder is not affected by this practice, and commences immediately on the acceptance of his tender.
 8. That a surveyor employed directly and solely by the builder, without the intervention or concurrence  of the architect, has no claim against the client, and must look for payment to those who employed him, and on whose instruction he acted.
 9. That there are circumstances under which an architect may make himself personally liable to a surveyor, but they are of infrequent occurrence, and are not likely to arise with architects of any standing or repute.
 10. That the surveyor is liable to the builder for proved in
accuracies or deficiencies in the quantities, and it is an obligation on him to prepare his quantities with the utmost care and accuracy, that the client may not suffer by excess, or the builder by want therein; and to fulfil his important duties with the strictest honour and integrity.

 The following case shows that surveyors must prove they have skill or knowledge of their profession, although the law will not allow them to be deprived of their remuneration for some small mistake:-

"In an action by an engineer for planning and making estimates for a bridge, the defence was that he did not bore of examine the soil for the foundation, and in consequence the company, for
 
 



building were put to an extra expense of £1000. Abbott, C.J., said - 'If a surveyor who makes an estimate sues his employers for the value of his services, it is a defence that he did not inform himself, by boring or otherwise, of the nature of the soil of his foundation, and it turned out to be bad, for this goes to his right of action.' On another trial on the same claim, Best C.J., stated the law to be that 'unless the negligence and want of skill was to an extent that rendered the work useless to the defendants, they must pay him and seek their remedy in a cross action; for if it were no so,' he said, 'a man might by a small error deprive himself of his whole remuneration." He further observed, 'that a man should not estimate a work at a price he would not contract for it; for if he did he deceived his employer.'"

  Probably I can quote no case so indicative of what the public pay for than the case of an auctioneer, as it shows so fully what is to be paid for is somethig of use to the employer; if therefore quantities are so faulty as to be misleading or useless or injurious, it would appear they need not be paid for.

 "an auctioneer, who was employed to sell a leasehold estate, failed to recover anything for his services because he had omitted to insert a condition in the particulars of sale, that the purchaser should not inquire into the landlord's title, and in consequence his employer was unable to make out a title to the purchaser, who refused to complete the purchase. Lord Ellenborough observed - 'When the plaintiff proceeds upon a quantum meruit, the just value of his services may be appreciated; and if they are found to be wholly abortive, he is entitled to recover no compensation.'"

  Certificates,- The following will show the power of the architect or surveyor:-

 "If the contract provides that the contractor shall obtain the certificate of the employer's architect before payment, he must do so. That he shall obtain such certificate is a condition precedent to his right of payment. A builder agreed to erect certain buildings under the superintendence of A.B. Clayton, or other the architect of his employer for the time being; and the contract after providing for payment of portions of the price during the progress of the work, stipulated that the balance found due to the builder should be paid by the employer within two calander months after receiving the said architect's certificate that the whole of the buildings and work thereby contracted for had been executed and completed to his satisfaction. It appeared that Mr. Clayton had examined and approved  of the builder's charges, and had written to the employer to that effect, but had not given a certificate that he was satisfied with the manner in which the work had been done.  This was held to be a condition precedent to the builder's right to recover for the work, and to and to apply to extra and additional works, as well as those specified in the contract."

next 

 

 

Make a free website with Yola