will refuse to back up the architect in his decisions, as the work progresses, or who will be inclined to take an attitude unfair to the architect, or who is incapable of appreciating the work done by the architect and the award to which he is reasonably entitled, it is much better to know these things in the beginning, than to undertake the work and learn them to one's cost later on. There is no better way of determining the type of client with which the architect is dealing than to present to him for signature a contract setting forth the terms of employment. If he means to play fair and handle the matter in a spirit of understanding and co-operation, he will have no objection to signing the contract. If he has the type of mind which results so often in misunderstandings and differences while the work is in progress, he will indicate it by his reaction to the contract provisions, and the architect will be forewarned in consequence.

In comparatively recent years, the increasing recognition by architects of the advantages of a contract with the client has resulted in the publication of the Standard Form of the American Institute. The publication of this form has marked a long stride forward. In the first place, it has made available generally to architects a printed form of contract, and, in the second place, due to the prestige of the Institute and its sponsorship of the form, it has brought home to the architect the thought that possibly the use of a written contract in his dealings with the client is not so impossible and revolutionary a thing as he has heretofore believed it to be. The Standard Form is, I do not doubt, the best form that could be worked out, in an effort to provide a form applicable to all practices and agreeable to the majority of architects. It omits, however, various provisions which are to be found in the long and intermediate forms of contract, to which I have re

ferred, and which are of real importance in the architect's practice.

Some of the provisions of the Standard Form call for special comment. In Article 1, the architect is charged with the keeping of accounts and the general administration of the business and supervision of the work. The reference to supervision is quite in order, but the agreement as to the keeping of accounts and the general administration of the business might have a much broader meaning than that contemplated by the parties. These latter references might well be omitted entirely. If they are retained, they should be so amplified as to make clear just what accounts are referred to and what is meant by the administration of the business. The architect and the client might each construe these terms in an entirely different way, and wholly unnecessary misunderstanding be caused in consequence.

The provisions of Article 5, with respect to the payment to the architect, in the event of the abandonment or suspension of the work, opens the door, it seems to me, to a substantial loss to the architect under certain conditions. As Article 5 is worded, the architect, where the work is suspended or abandoned, "is to be paid in accordance with or in proportion to the terms of Article 6 for the services rendered on account of it up to the time of such abandonment or suspension." Article 6 must therefore be read in conjunction with Article 5. The danger of these clauses, as they stand, is that, if the work is abandoned at a point where, for instance, the architect has completed the preliminary studies, and has proceeded with some of his work on the specifications and working drawings, the client can claim that the only payment due the architect is twenty per cent of the basic rate. Under Article 6, twenty per cent of the basic rate would be the only amount payable at

that point in the building operation. The payment of this amount to the architect would clearly not be fair, however, because, having proceeded with the specifications and working drawings, he has incurred additional expense and performed additional services. The contract should be so worded in all cases, in my opinion, as to insure payment to the architect of the full amount of the work which he has performed up to the time of the abandonment or suspension of the work by the client. It is very rarely that the suspension or abandonment would take place at the exact time when the first twenty per cent stage of the work has been completed, or when the second sixty per cent stage of the work has been completed. The chances all are that, when the work is suspended or abandoned, the architect has proceeded with the next stage of the work beyond that completed at the time of the abandonment, and he should be protected accordingly.

Under Article 6 the balance of the fee is payable "during the execution of the work and in proportion to the amount of service rendered by the architect." It is preferable to provide that this shall be payable as the work of the architect progresses. Payment will not then be dependent, possibly, upon the progress made on the job itself.

With respect to Article 7, a statement that any directions of the owner to the contractor shall be made through the architect will serve to obviate any divided authority in the direction of the work, and will protect the owner and the architect alike.

Article 10 of the standard form of agreement is to my mind very dangerous. It provides that no estimate given by the architect "can be regarded as other than an approximation." The clear inference which this wording carries is that it is to be regarded as an approximation. If this means anything, it means

clearly that it is to be taken as approximately correct. No architect, no matter how experienced he may be, or what may be the sources of information available to him, can under present building conditions have any assurance that he can correctly approximate the cost of a proposed job. It is the everyday experience of architects throughout the country that estimates which they make, with full consideration and care, are far below the lowest responsible bid received. If the architect enters into a contract with the client in the wording of Article 10 and submits an estimate of cost of $500,000 and the work costs $750,000, as may well be the case, the client can certainly, with a fair show of reason, take the position that the architect's estimate is not approximately correct and that, for this reason, he has not fulfilled the terms of his agreement. In this case, the architect might not only lose his fee, but might face a claim by the client for damages occasioned to the latter by the inaccuracy of the architect's estimate.

Article 14 provides that "all questions in dispute under this agreement shall be submitted to arbitration at the choice of either party." Arbitration is an excellent thing in its place, but to say that every question arising under the contract shall be referred to arbitration is inadvisable, it seems to me, from the point of view of the owner as well as from the point of view of the architect. It is a fair statement, I think, to say that the result of the ordinary arbitration is that the arbitrator more or less splits the difference between the parties and that no one as a rule is entirely satisfied. In addition to this, an arbitration proceeding is not as simple as one would suppose. I have been through a number of them recently, and I am not at all sure that, aside from the delay in the jurisdictions where the calendars are crowded, a trial before a good judge and jury is not

preferable. It may be well to leave to arbitration, if the parties desire it, certain of the matters which may be in dispute between them, but to provide broadly that every question in dispute, which will include of course the amount of the compensation due the architect and all claims which the client may advance against him, whether justified under the contract or not, are to be determined by arbitrators, rather than by a court, is dangerous in the extreme.

There are various other matters which the Standard Form does not fully cover and which should be provided for where possible. Examples of such provisions may be found in the long form contract in the appendix. For example, the provisions with respect to special work, payment for successive sketches and plans, payment of commissions on furnishings, fixtures and landscape work, and the like.

With respect to this whole question of the contract between the client and the architect, whether the form preferred is the Institute form or another form, it must be remembered always that the practice of every architect has certain special characteristics which distinguish it from the practice of other architects. To secure the best results, each architect should have prepared for him the form of contract which meets the special requirements and conditions of his own practice. A contract which is drawn to protect an architect specializing in country houses will have many provisions which are not applicable to the practice of an architect specializing in apartment buildings, or of an architect engaged in hotel work. In the case of a large operation, such as the building of an hotel, the architect will doubtless, for example, employ a resident superintendent of construction at his own expense, where in the case of residential work such employment would either not be necessary or, if made, would be at the expense of