March_1965 — Page 31

OPINION

By Professor W. G. Gregory B Arch, ARIBA

CONTRACTING WITH AN ARCHITECT

A CONTRACT normally specifies the performance of a

service or the supply of something for an agreed sum of money.

Professional men, although performing a service, do not by tradition enter into contracts with their clients; the argument being that unless there is mutual trust between the parties the personal service cannot be pro- perly rendered. In the medical and legal professions, the services to be performed cannot be precisly defined nor the results guaranteed a doctor does not undertake to cure nor a lawyer to win a case.

The architect, also by tradition, is disinclined to tie his client and himself together by contract at least no further than that an exchange of letters may bind two parties together.

Many projects start in a very casual way, with the client unsure of his needs or abilities to proceed, requir- ing the architect to assist in exploratory activities, from which stage ideas develop into a project, the architect finding himself some time later completely involved and proceeding with the work without having been formally appointed. There is also a reluctance on the part of an architect to give the impression that he is primarily concerned with fees and conditions of engagement, when invited to undertake a commission.

He refrains from discussing the "sordid" question of fees with his client and both parties start off without being fully aware of what each is expecting the other to do. The client may be a little apprehensive of what he is going to be charged by way of fees and the architect of how, when and if he will get them.

Results Guaranteed

What is apt to be forgotten by the architect is that many clients only employ or deal with an architect once in their lives or at least at relatively long intervals (development companies excepted) and also that many clients, through experience in commerce or even in meeting their daily needs, do in fact expect specific performance for the money they spend.

The architect differs from the doctor or the lawyer in that tacitly he guarantees results, so that while he may still act professionally, the terms under which the results may be determined are able to be defined.

The Royal Institute of British Architects has pro- duced an official form of agreement for use between client and architect, the use of which is to the advantage of both parties, particularly the client, since it clearly specifies the work and functions that the architect has to perform to earn his fee. It also makes clear to the client what his commitments are as regards the amounts of fees, the times when they are due, as well as to other matters of importance.

The agreement is a relatively simple document but its force is amplified by the reference to the Conditions of Engagement and Scale of Fees of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the terms of which are thus made applicable.

It is this latter document which defines for the client the duties of the architect under various circumstances.

But the agreement is by no means one-sided. By specifically defining the architect's responsibilities it con- versely indicates to the client those which are not and

Far East Architect & Builder March, 1965

those which must be undertaken by others, for instance, the preparation of the bill of quantities by a quantity

surveyor.

While this is the recommended British practice, the underlying principles remain the same whenever the architect is employed in a professional capacity.

In Hong Kong the profession is represented by the Hong Kong Society of Architects, who have laid down Conditions of Engagement and a Scale of Professional Charges. It only remains for the drawing up of a simple form of agreement in which reference is made to the Conditions and to the Scale for a healthy basis of operation to be established between Hong Kong clients and architects.

Agreements Rare

The RIBA strongly recommends the completion of a formal agreement between client and architect; it sees no harm in putting the work involved in the preparation and supervision of a building project on a proper business footing.

In Hong Kong agreements are rarely, if at all adopted. It is difficult to understand why this is so. One tends to look for some sinister reasons. For instance, it is known that fee-cutting exists, which means under such circumstances that to work profitably an architect must give an inferior service, since the scale of fees is designed to give a reasonable return only for a full service.

when

The axiom cannot be stressed too strongly fee-cutting is practised it is not possible for an architect to work profitably and at the same time give a proper service. To this may be added, that if a proper service appears to be given with a reduced fee then there is room for suspicion that remuneration is also being obtained from other sources.

----

On the part of clients, one may suspect, that there is a feeling that, by not having a contract with an architect, it is easier to get out of paying him if the building does not turn out as expected. Or that in the tentative stages of a project it is easier to keep the archi- tect on a string dangling the carrot before his nose. There are no doubt architects and clients who manage to establish satisfactory relationships without the assistance of formal agreements, due to exceptional per- sonalities or through long association, or because of long personal friendships. But the fact remains that the services of architects are increasingly in demand by an increasing range of clients for an increasing variety of projects. Thus the former basis of appointment of the architect through having personal knowledge of him is less likely to occur and conversely the architect is less likely to have had previous knowledge of the majority

of his clients.

Misunderstandings Prevented

At the beginning I said that it was important for the success of a project that there should be mutual trust and understanding between client and architect, and while this is easy to establish at the start, during the lengthy period of preparation of the project and building, many things may change, memories become blurred, difficulties arise (on both sides) resulting in misunderstandings; clients may feel that they have been let down and architects have difficulties in obtaining payment of just fees. It is then that the advantage of an agreement becomes

manifest.

First, the fact that the areas of responsibility of both parties are defined prevents the occurrence of mis- understandings. Secondly, if misunderstandings should occur and are not able to be resolved by mutual consent the agreement allows for a solution by arbitration.

In the files of too many architects and clients, there is evidence of too many projects which came to comple- tion in an atmosphere of tension and ill-feeling between them, due very often to ignorance and misunderstanding of the terms under which architects work. The moral should be obvious.

61