Architectural Law and Contracts 541

8/6/2019 Architectural Law and Contracts 541

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/architectural-law-and-contracts-541 1/3

Architectural Law and Contracts 541

Assignment 2 Lu SengKiat 15

Question 1:

y

This is a matter of life management rather than architectural practice managementy Imbalance in life is typical for an architect due to the nature of work (long hours). However for the

case of Caesar, much of the pressure arises due to personal mentality, which is putting his girlfriendsecond to his materialistic achievement, the Ferrari.Besides that, his reluctance to compromise beinga boyfriend and a designer causes the disrupted balance. Since Chantelle desires simple gesture of love, Caesar can put aside the mind as a self-righteous designer and be a normal boyfriend gettingChantelle a card or a heart shaped chocolate and tells her he loves her. He could however design thegift that he sees fit and personally crafts it for Chantelle as a sign of sincerity.

y Not being the sole proprietor in his firm, he can easily channel part of his workload to his partner,Jessie whenever circumstances require. Taking a break from job is indeed possible sparing moretime for his personal life.

y Having his mother as secretary, he can often rely on her as a mediator or consultant in both work anddomestic life. I believe his mother, with both feet in the situation of the firm and her son¶s personality,would be able to offer valuable advice for both Caesar and Chantelle to reconcile.

y However, concerning ethics of work, his mother acted unprofessionally as a secretary in the office, byacknowledging the office of Caesar¶s personal problems. That would not do anything but escalatesCaeasar¶s focus on the fax.

y ³In dwelling, live close to the ground. In thinking, keep to the simple. In conflict, be fair and generous.In governing, don¶t try to control. In work, do what you enjoy. In family life, be completely present.´ ²Lao Tzu, Taoist and Philosopher

y ³Imagine life as a game in which you are juggling some five balls in the air. You name them ± work,

family, health, friends and spirit « and you¶re keeping all of these in the air. You will soon understand

that work is a rubber ball. If you drop it, it will bounce back. But the other four balls ± family, health,

friends and spirit ± are made of glass.´ - Brian Dyson, CEO Coca Cola

Question 2:

y A written agreement would certainly clarify the terms of agreement between Caesar with Built Object

Constructions regarding additional services and additional fees.

y Site surveying services could have been clearly stated of its scope for the architect and claimable

travel fees through written agreement. The disputes clearly arises from the unilateral mistakes from

both sides , seeing the architect relies on the builder( CAAClause 4.03) to provide sufficient and

accurate site data while the builder expects the architect to go in detail on the Shark Bay site other

than the photographs. Besides that, Caesar firm is required to deliver the drawings and documents in

a short 4 days, with little time reserved for detailed site study below ground. Thus, in other sense,

Caesar firm fulfilled their scope of work by on time drawings and documents delivery. They only

breached their agreement by not visiting the site. However, it¶s unlikely for them to have known the

subterranean cable on the site as the task would be beyond reasonable architect¶s specialty.

y In reality, the oral agreement in good faith between both parties causes these terms to remainambiguous. There is no statement that claim for travel fee will be reimbursed although might occur

upon final cost of works, thus Caesar is not obliged to visit the site beyond manageable distance.

Built Object Construction should have considered the appointment of site specialists, knowing the

variations of site for the kiosks and also the long running rapport between the two parties. As Caesar

doesn¶t have any direct contractual relationship with WA Department of Conservation and

Environment, his firm is not liable for the cost for extension of work. However the site related cost still



incurs due to Caesar¶s negligence on professional duty. He is liable for giving negligent advice on the

site condition and not foreseeing the consequences relevant to the cable and lack of potable water.

y As agreed in their oral agreement, Caesar firm is expected to each site of the kiosks, which he

breached by not doing so for the fifth. The certain extent, they owed contractual liability to their client.

I would think that a written agreement would reduce the their liability on the additional cost by stating

clearly the scope of architect¶s duty, limit of liability, the appointment of specialist and total cost of

work.

Question 3:

y In the case of injury at site, Caesar¶s firm shall not be full liability of any sort unless it is due to error of

architect¶s instructions and specification. Since Caesar, as agreed in oral agreement, is tasked for

design, document and limited contract administration with no contractual obligation on site

supervision, site supervising might be appointed to a site coordinator from Built Object Company.

Thus, the incident occurred if not by architect¶s error in advice, would be the error of coordination by

those on site. There¶s no breach of contract by the architect. On the other hand,Caesar would owe

the duty of care in tort to the injured worker as he as the professional should foresee the risk of

suspended structure during construction and injury incident due to human error. In this case, Caesar

has exercised competent skills to required standard of care as an architect, proven by the success

from the previous 4 kiosks. The evidences of breach of implied duty of care too are unclear.

Question 4:

y The terms of oral agreement between Caesar and the builder again remain ambiguous of the limit of works, result of unconscionable conduct. Without any written proof, they might have to refer toprevious construction contracts to determine the liability of architect. However, the negligence onCaesar part for not visiting Shark Bay is clear that his firm is directly contractually liable to the cost for the cable relocation and potable water transport. It is arguable that the builder as the client or even

the Western Australia Department is obliged to provide all information in the brief required by thearchitect to complete the services as stated in CAA Clause I.c, particularly regarding the hard to misswind farm issue.

y Furthermore the builder could have appointed specialist to conduct detailed site survey, realizing the

fast tracked nature of the project and the different site conditions. The total project cost as mentioned

in CAA, included contingencies, which mean the sum for rectification site conflicts would have been

discussed in the oral contract. The sum suggested by the builder can be disputed. The success of the

first four proved that Caesar displayed professional standard of care in their tasks, showing no

negligence in competence.

y According to AIA¶s CAA Clause H.2.b, the architect is not liable to client in respect of any indirect,

consequential or special losses. In Caesar¶s case, it would mean the time extension fee between the

builder and their client would not be imposed on Caesar as it is builder¶s decision having fixed fee

contract rather than allowing liquidated damages fees.It is according to Acumen, the builder isresponsible to keep the project on track by all means and also should foresee the potential delay of

work caused by differing site conditions.



16 February 2011

Built Object Constructions

221 St Georges Terrace,Level 29, the Forrest Centre,PERTH WA 6000

ATTENTION: Peter Griffin

Dear Peter,

Re: Kiosk Additional Cost on Cable Relocation and Water Supply at Shark Bay

We wish to formally explain on the problematic site issues discovered on the Kiosk 5 in Shark Bay andexpress our concern on the allegation that our firm should fully bear the additional costs arises from thosecircumstances in your writing to us. You should understand that Magenta and Johnson Architects

cherishes the long running business relationship with you and I strongly believe we can reach a middleground on the situation though plausible remedies. There are conditions you should be aware of theabsence of information regarding the subterranean cable and on site potable water supply:

1. The final site plan issued for Shark Bay kiosk was essentially based on the information andphotographs provided by your company. The previous 4 kiosks¶ plan were similarly drawn inreference to the site data you provided and evidently to be successful and none site issues arose. Myfirm thus was led to believe in the accuracy and adequacy of the site data provided and workedaccordingly. Thus, there is no necessity to conduct the time consuming site survey considering theurgency of the project. The subterranean cables for wind farms are clearly unforeseeable as the initialcommission of the project didn¶t imply the presence of the wind farms nearby. Such important issue isought to be clarified by Western Department of Conservation and Environment being the client. Under the Institute's Client and Architect Agreement , Clause 4.03, it is the client's responsibility to provide

all particulars concerning the site, including survey information. They are obliged to provide detailedsite survey in the initial project brief prior to commission. Comprehensive site survey informationprovided by a licensed surveyor is preferable, and in many cases essential, in the implementation of any building project.

2. Due to the ambiguity of the terms in our oral contract, Magenta and Johnson Architects is not obligedto conduct extensive site survey as the sub consultant to Western Department of Conservation andEnvironment. Furthermore, there was no statement of the degree of detail for the investigation andthe additional funding for this particular site, Shark Bay. We are concerned of the fairness on our sideto bear the full cost in part of relocation of the cable as we believe there have beenmiscommunications in oral agreement and dispute of fees on both sides as well as the projectcommissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Caesar Magenta for Magenta and Johnson Archtiects

Documents

Architectural Law and Contracts 541