allow the architect who is substituted to continue the work under the plans of the architect discharged. This would manifestly be a rank injustice to the architect. The plans are the children of his brain, and it is not fair that any owner should expect to have the right both to discharge the architect and also to continue to use the plans which he has created.

This raises a question upon which there is very general misunderstanding, both in the minds of architects and in the minds of laymen. It has long been considered by the architectural profession that the plans belong to and remain at all times the property of the architect. In the absence, however, of a specific agreement to the foregoing effect, it has been held by the courts that the plans are the property of the client who employs the architect and pays for them. If the plans are to be considered the property of the architect, therefore, it must be as a result of a definite agreement to this effect between the client and himself.

The inclusion in the contract between architect and client of a provision to this effect has now become the general rule. Such a provision is both in accordance with the recognized custom of the architectural provision and in accordance with what is fair and proper. The

provision of the Institute contract on this point is that "drawings and specifications as instruments of service are the property of the architect whether the work for which they are made be executed or not." I have had occasion to observe, in more detail perhaps than most, the difficulties which beset architects in their practice. I feel, as a result, that the foregoing contract term might and should, in justice to the architect, be somewhat broadened, so as to cover specifically the contingency of an attempt to use the plans for the completion of the building under the direction of another architect.

In fairness to the architect, it will be entirely in order I think to provide that in the case of the discharge of the architect, or the failure to re-employ him after a recommencement of the work following its suspension, the plans which he has prepared shall not be used, unless he is employed as the architect of the work or, having had the opportunity to act as such, has refused. If the owner invites him to continue the work and the architect refuses, or is unable for any reason to do so, it is manifest that the owner should have the right, under such conditions, to proceed with the work under the original plans. In other words, he should not lose the benefit of the plans because the architect has

refused to continue with the performance of his services. If he does use the plans, however, provision should be made for the payment of fair compensation to the architect for their use.

This compensation might justly be the amount of his percentage commission on the total cost of the building as completed, less such proportion of it as would represent his services in supervising the work. Inasmuch as he would not be called upon to supervise the work under such conditions he should not be entitled to any compensation therefor. The broadening of the above provision with respect to the use of the plans for the completion of the building is in the interest of the owner as well as of the architect. As the Institute contract is drawn, it is questionable whether the owner would have the right to use the plans in any event if, after suspension, the architect refused to continue with the work, in view of the unqualified provision that the plans remain at all times the property of the architect.

In the great majority of cases, it will be the desire of the architect and of the owner to act with strict fairness, the one to the other, and no difficulty will be experienced in arriving at an adjustment of any problems which the work may present. It is the exceptional case which must

be guarded against, however, and which may cause unpleasantness and loss on both sides, unless the rights of the parties have been made clear. There will be no difficulty in the first instance in arriving at a proper understanding where both sides are reasonable. The execution of a proper contract in the beginning will obviate many misunderstandings and difficulties at a later date.

A word of special caution is in order with respect to so-called representations of cost by the architect. Many laymen employing architects assume that the latter are in a position to estimate, with substantial accuracy, the exact cost of the work to be done. One of the first and most natural questions which a client is likely to ask an architect is, "What will this work cost?" The fact is, that while an architect can estimate much more closely than most the cost of the work, he cannot do more, in the last analysis, than give his best guess with respect to it, based on his knowledge and experience. The home builder will do well to remember, therefore, that any statements as to cost made to him by the architect are ordinarily merely estimates, and that he should not rely unqualifiedly upon their accuracy.

In some cases, the client has made an agree

ment with an architect that the cost of the building should not in any event exceed a specified sum. If the architect is willing to make an agreement of this character, it is undoubtedly a protection to the client to have him do so. On the other hand very few, if any, high-class and businesslike architects will, under ordinary conditions, enter into any such agreement. They realize, more than most, the uncertainties of building costs and conditions and, for this reason, they quite properly are not willing to have their compensation depend on the cost of the building falling within a guaranteed amount. Again, if they were to make such an agreement, they might well lay themselves open thereby to claims for damages on the part of the client, in the event that the building costs more than the amount specified. The architect will be glad to discuss the matter of cost with the owner and to give him freely the benefit of his advice and experience on this point. In fairness to the architect, however, and in order not to mislead himself, the owner will do well to treat these discussions as estimates and not in any sense as guarantees.

Another entirely reasonable provision of the contract between architect and owner is that the owner shall give prompt attention and con