AN ARCHITECT’S FEES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1070, 1 March 1913, Page 3

AN ARCHITECT’S FEES.

A DISPUTED CD AIM. A considerable amount of time was taken up at yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court with a dispute in connection with an architect’s fees. A, O. Jorgensen, of Palmerston N., for whom Mr Hurley appeared, sued Alfred Fraser (Mr Moore), for the sum of £6 for supplying a rough sketch plan and specifications of a proposed building in Main Street, the amount of claim being one per cent, on the estimated cost of the building. Evidence was given by plaintiff to the effect that alter the fire in Foxton in June last he approached defendant in reference to plans for a new building. Mr leaser then said that he had not made up his mind as to the class of building he Intended erecting. After some conversation plaintiff stated that it was agreed that he should furnish rough plans and specifications of a building, subject to Mr Fraser’s approval. This he did, forwarding the plans to him the following day. M r Fraser used the plans to send with an application for an advance to the Government Advances Office, and after receiving them back from there returned them to plaintiff. L. G. West, of Palmerston N., gave evidence to the, effect that the plaintiff’s charge for preparing rough plans and specifications was a. very reasonable one. He said he had approached defendant in reference to plans and Mr Fraser had told him that Mr Jorgenson had already seen him, but he was not under any liability to him.

For the defence, Mr Moore called the defendant, who stated that Mr Jorgenson approached him in reference to furnishing plans of a new building and he told him that he had not yet decided as to whal he intended to do in the matter. After some conversation Mr Jorgenson offered to furnish a rough sketch and specifications, but defendant said it was no use doing anything as he had then come to no decision as to the building. Mr Jorgenson persisted and as he was leaving said he would send the sketch down and there would be no charge for it. The plan came to hand and when witness was sending an application to the Advances Offices he also sent the plan. ' Upon it being sent back he immediately, returned it to Mr Jorgenson with a letter advising him that he had decided not to do anything with it and had engaged another architect to furnish plans of a building. Charles Aleck Natusch gave evidence as to the usual practice of architects. If rough sketches, similar to the one in question were supplied, and they were not used in connection with the building, no charge was made for them. Alter counsel had addressed the Court* the Magistrate said it was a case in which there was great conflict of evideuce between two apparently truthful meu and he would not care to say which was right. In that case it was necessary to get the actual facts and see what the law was on the question. According to law it was quite clear that an architect was entitled to recover an amount equalling one per cent, of the estimated cost of a proposed building for supplying rough plans and specifications, and judgment would therefore be for plaintiff for the amount. claimed, £6 with costs 17s, witness’ expenses £1 7s 2d and solicitor’s fee £2 6s.