The law relating to building : with precedents of building leases and contracts and other forms connected with building and the statute law relating to building with notes and cases under the various sections / by Judge Emden ; assisted by Henry Johnston.

  • Alfred Charles Emden
Date:
1895
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The law relating to building : with precedents of building leases and contracts and other forms connected with building and the statute law relating to building with notes and cases under the various sections / by Judge Emden ; assisted by Henry Johnston. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    92/744 page 44
    Chap. VI. The Archi- tect, his Duties and Liabilities. Duty of architect or surveyor. Where archi- tect’s work is useless. Duty of Architect. Duty of Architect.—The public profession of an art is a representation and undertaking to all the world that the pro- fessor possesses the requisite skill and ability. And when architects or surveyors are employed, although the highest possible degree of skill cannot be demanded, yet, there is on their part an implied warranty that they are reasonably com- petent to the task they undertake.' The architect is, more- over, responsible not only for himself, but for those whom he may employ under him.^ It was at one time held that valuers, recklessly valuing property for a mortgagor., were liable for loss sustained by a mortgagee, who acted on such valuation.^ The same law would, no doubt, have been applied to an architect acting recklessly, but the law is no longer the same.* In Le Lievre v. Gould,^ mortgagees of the interest of a builder under a building agreement advanced money to him, from time to time, on the faith of certificates given by a surveyor, that certain specified stages in the progress of the buildings had been reached. The surveyor was not appointed by the mortgagees, and there was no contractual relation between him and them. In consequence of the negligence of the sur- veyor, the certificates contained untrue statements as to the progress of the buildings, but there was no fraud on his part and it was consequently decided that the surveyor owed no duty to the mortgagees to exercise care m giving his certificates, and that they could not maintain an action against him by reason of negligence. _ ,• In the absence of any contract, an action for negligence cannot be maintained where there is no fraud. The most satisfactory mode of determining whether the architect has exercised proper skill is, to show by evidence whether a majority, or even a moiety, out of a of skilful and experienced persons, would have acted as he Where a person undertakes, and is employed in perform- ing, a work of skill and labour, and fails therein, so that his ^5 C. B. 168; ^ f^rd^NoruL’C^^'Dy^ ‘^Mackersy v. Ramsays, 9 C. & F. 8i8. The principal, in most instances, has no remedy Vq^”b. agenf, there being no privily between them ; see Cobb v. Bede, ^ mSr 39 57 L. J. Ch. 1034 ; 37 W. R. ^3 ; 1;Lievre v. Gould, [1893] i Q- B- 49^ 6^ L. T Q- B- 353 i 68 L. T. 626 ; 41 W. R. 468 J 57 J- B. 484; 9 T. L. K. 243- « ifltevre v. Gould, supra: Derry ^.Peck, H A_C- 337 5 58 L. J. Ch. 864 ; 61 L. T. 265 ; 38 W. R. 33 i 5 T. L- ’ Chapman v. Walton, 10 Bing. 63 ; 3 ^ Scott, 389.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3