the supervision of the work. A provision of this kind is quite valid, if it be agreed to. If the contract contain such a provision, the architect will be bound by it and, unless he performs personally all of the services in question, he will be guilty of a breach of the con

tract.

In the case of a private house there will ordinarily be no need to employ a clerk of the works. If the building operation is one involving a large amount of money, and is carried forward on an extensive scale, the employment of a clerk of the works will doubtless be advisable. In ordinary residence work, however, where the sums involved are reasonably moderate, the customary supervision of the architect will suffice. The number of visits to be made by the architect will vary in accordance with the progress of the work. At certain stages it will be necessary for him to be in attendance much more often than at others. If he is conscientious in his work the owner can well leave it to him to give such supervision as may be necessary.

The owner, in the ordinary case, will naturally be intensely interested in the work as it progresses. As a result of this interest it often happens that he will unthinkingly issue orders to the contractor, without consulting the ar

chitect. This he should not do. It is in the interests of the owner, just as it is in the interests of the architect, that the authority of the architect should be made as definite and firm as possible. If the owner issues directions to the contractor direct it will tend to weaken the architect's authority and may result in much added expense. A direction to the contractor, which to the owner may seem to call for a very simple expense, may in reality involve other structural changes which the architect, if consulted, would have appreciated, but of which the owner has no understanding. The architect is the professional adviser of the owner in the building operation and the owner should not go over his head in dealing with the builder.

There has been a marked tendency, in recent years, to provide in the agreements between architects and owners for the arbitration of any matters in dispute between them. The theory underlying arbitration is a good one and there can be no question that any proceeding which will keep parties out of court is ordinarily desirable. An arbitration is, however, not an unmixed blessing, and in some cases, especially in jurisdictions where cases can be reached for trial promptly, I am inclined to feel that the arbitration plan may be overdone. In any event, the

owner will do well to consider whether he wants to leave everything to arbitration and, if so, what provisions with respect to arbitrators will be fair and proper.

The tendency of arbitrators, quite naturally perhaps, is to "split the difference." This procedure may or may not work out justly. In the ordinary case there is something to be said on both sides, and in such a case a compromise may be substantially just. On the other hand, where one party may be entirely in the wrong, an arbitration may nevertheless result in a compromise verdict, which will be an injustice to the other party. I am not at all opposed to arbitration, and believe in any system which will help to do away with the expense, delays, and uncertainties of the ordinary court proceeding. I would merely caution the owner not to accept arbitration as a cure for all the ills which may characterize any disagreements between himself and his architect or contractor.

CHAPTER IX

THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND

T

BUILDING OPERATION

HE contract between the owner and the

builder is in many ways the most important document relating to the building of the home. It is this contract which governs the respective rights and liabilities of the owner and the contractor. If it is properly drawn in the interests of the owner these rights will be protected and he will be insured, as nearly as he can be insured, a proper job and full value for the money which he expends. If it is not properly phrased it may mean-and in many cases it will mean-substantial losses to him, excessive claims for extras, controversies with his builder and many unnecessary complications.

In the ordinary case, when the plans have been completed they will be submitted by the architect to builders for bids. The architect will gladly suggest the names of builders with whom he has had satisfactory business dealings,

and will submit the plans to these builders and to such other builders as the owner may desire. The builders will examine the plans and specifications and will submit their bids for the work. Upon receipt of the bids the owner will be in a position to accept the bid which he considers the most advantageous. Ordinarily, this will naturally be the lowest bid received. This is not always the case, however, as it often happens that a bid which is somewhat higher than another may, owing to other considerations, be more acceptable. If there is not a great difference between two bids, and one is submitted by a builder whose work and reputation for fair dealing is well known, it may be good business to accept his bid, if the builder submitting the lower one has not an equally satisfactory and established reputation.

It must be borne in mind that the submission of a bid by the builder does not constitute a contract binding upon him. It is merely an offer and does not ripen into a contract unless and until it is accepted. Upon its acceptance by the owner, a contract is thereby consummated. If the acceptance of the owner, however, interjects new elements into the situation, it will not operate to transform the bid into a contract. The acceptance must be of the offer as made.