Evening star., 1915-11-20
COPIED. SPECIFICATIONS
OFTEN CAUSE TROUBLE
Contain Ambiguous Phrases Which
Result in misunderstanding,
Says Writer.

One of the most frequent causes or
trouble between owners. engineers and
contractors Is the inability OF some
engineers to express their require
ments clearly, concisely and in plain
uneauivocal English, SO that all con-
serned may read and know what their
specifications mean and call for, says
Il writer in the Real Estate Magazine.
Most of this trouble can be ascribed
TO the practice of copying specification
provisions from some other person
work or from some ancient specifca-
tfons with no regard or consideration
as to whether the class OF materials
is the present market classification or
whether even obtainable except at an
eXorbitant price. Such specifications
usually contain ambiguous phrases
which have been rightly named clup
or big stick clauses, unfair to an
parties, and which create the impress
sion that the engineer htmsei1 does liot
know what he wants. and that ne eA-
poets to cover up his 'dehclnecy pS
other common phrases such as the de-
cision of the architect as to the true
construction and meaning OF the draw
ings and specifications shall be nnal
that all work and materials must pc
to the entire satisfaction of the engl-
neer"; that all materials must be OF
the best quality; that all work must
be done in the best manner as the en-
gineer shall direct, etc
Faulty Expressions Cited.
Nor do these expressions always ac-
complish the expected result. Some ex-
amples that well illustrate this were
enumuI ated by William l.. Bowman
in a paper entitled, The Engineer and
the Law" read before the Harvard
Engineering Society of New York. One
instance he cites was where CONTRACT
for heating piaIt provided 20. a
complete and peifect JOB, even taoa7h
every item required to make 1t Such $
not specially noted in the drawing or
these specifications; also that the co.,
tracto. suaii Iu. nisn all laoor, tools
and appliances necessary TO compile
his wo. k according to these Speciaca-
tions, and shall perform has woIk III a
true workman Ike manner in eve4y
particulaI, and thus provide the Dulld-
ing wltn durable ana mechanically
perfect system; it was held that the
contractor was not required to improve
upon the plans in o. der to make
mechanically perfect system.
Other Examples Given.
Another example given by Mr.. Bow
man was where a contract required the
construction OF cellar according to
specifications, 1t was held that an add
tional requirement that the whole to
be perfectly watertight and guaran-
teed" only bound the contractor so far
as his own work was concerned, and
that he was not held to guarantee that
the plans would produce a watertight
job. In another instar ce, where tin
roof of the best quality was called
for. the trial justice in chrging the
jury held that such a requirement was
satisdedoHhen the roof as finished was
equal to the standard contemplated by
the contract" In another contract q
reservoir was required to be built ac-
cording to definite plans ard specifca-
tions. and the contract further pro-
vided that the work contemplated
is the construction of a water
tight reservoir" and 1t was held that
did not impose upon the contractors
the responsibility of making the reser-
voir watertight. because consideration
of the entire terms of the contract
showed that they had no discretion as
to the method or means of doing the
work