DeHoff v. Scott

Citations

• 69 Pa. Super. 9
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 312

Syllabus

<p>Practice, G. P. — Pleadings—Contract—Erroneous charge — Architect.</p> <p>In an action by an architect to recover for services in drawing plans and specifications for a building', it is reversible error for the trial judge to state in his charge a different basis for compensation than that alleged in the pleadings, or suggested in the evidence.</p> <p>In such a case where it appears that the plaintiff’s plans were rejected because the cost of applying them to the property would he largely in excess of the contract price, and it also appears that the defendant employed another architect to make the plans and supervise the construction of the building, a judgment for plaintiff will be reversed, where it appears that the counsel for plaintiff gave the plans of his client, which had not been admitted in evidence, to the jury, in substitution for the plans of the second architect, which had been admitted in evidence, and that this error was not noticed by counsel for defendant or the court at the time.</p> <p>As a general rule, where one directs an architect to make plans and specifications for a building and stipulates that its cost of construction shall not exceed, a definite sum, the architect cannot recover compensation for his work, unless the building can be erected for approximately the sum specified. Thus where the contract provides for a building to cost $12,000, and the plans submitted would require the expenditure of $16,000, the plans may be rejected.</p> <p>In such a ease it is error for the court to reject bona fide bids for the construction of the building, offered for the purpose of showing the good faith of the defendant in rejecting- the plans of the plaintiff. '</p> <p>A copy of an unsigned letter relating to a prospective bid is improperly admitted in such a case, if the letter is not sufficiently identified.</p>