Morning journal and courier., 1888-12-17
NO. 2o8

tioned in the specification, and that there
 was no probability that it could be stretched
 to cover the painting of house. Apparent
 y the owner also took legal advice as to his claims on the architects, for he abandoned it and paid for the painting himself, as he
 would unquestionably have been compelled
 to do if he had been 50 foolish as to carry
 the dispute into court. The law is perfectly
 well settled that the omission of anything from contract or specification, by an oVer- sight of the architect, renders him liable, at
 worst, only for the difference between the
 cost of doing it after the discovery of the
 omission and what it would have cost to do
 It 1t It had been originally included in the specification or contract. In most cases this
 difference is nothing, and there is therefore
 no damage to be claimed; and even if there
 should be real difference, and correspond
 ing damage, the architect would not have to bear 1t unless the omission showed lack of reasonable care and skill. It should be re- membered that the architect does not guar- antee that his specifications are either full or accurate. Heaven forbid" said the Lord Chancellor of England, "that 8 lawyer
 should be expected to know all the law" and an architect is no more to be expected to re- member every item about building, in wria
 ting his specification, than his counsel is to know all the law. If he makes glaring mis- takes, such as architects of good ordinary skill and diligence would not make, he is H. able for any damage that his employer may
 suffer in consequence, but that is the extent of his liability. The idea that an architect
 gives guaranty to an indefinite amount
 with everything that he does or says, how
 ever hastily, is much favored by the persons
 who look on all business transactions as
 traps, by which weak or unwary people are
 to be caught and desced, but it has no sanc-
 tion in the courts.
 On the contrary, case recently decided on appeal in England has established the rule that even quantity surveyor is not re- sponsible for the correctness of his quanti- ties. In the case in question quantity sur-
 veyor was employed to take out the quanti-
 ties for certain building from the plans and specifications, and the tenders for the
 work were based on these quantities. It is
 the custom in England for the bidder whose
 tender is accepted to pay the surveyors fee,
 and on the completion of ihe contract the
 surveyor, who had not been able to get his
 money before, brought suit against the con-
 tractor for it. The contractor refused to
 pay, setting up counter claim that, on &C.,
 count of the inaccuracy of the quantities,
 which were less in several instances than the actual amount of work required he was obliged to do more work than he had esti- mated upon, and had suffered much damage
 in consequence. There was apparently req
 son to suppose that the contractors claim was we'll founded, but both the lower court
 and the Court of Appeal refused even to listen to the evidence which he offered They admitted the surveyors witnesses, to prove that the custom was for the contractor
 to pay for the quantities, but barred out the counter claim entirely, on the ground that the law was established that quantity sur- veyor did not guarantee his work, and evil dence to prove it's inacourasy could not be admitted. It is true that the English archi- tectural journals comment rather severely on
 this decision, and quote another where an owner recovered damages from a surveyor who made his quantities too large and there
 by unduly enhanced the contract price; but the decision shows that if a surveyor, on whose data are based the contractors figures, is not liable for mistakes in them, it would be preposterous to try to make an architect suffer for not being infallible and omnis- cicnt, where no damage could be shown to have resulted from his errors or oversights.