Skip to main content
· 2/25/1907

Fay v. Lester Piano Co.

Citations

  • 32 Pa. Super. 437
  • 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 30

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Building contract — Approval by architect — Fraud.</p> <p>In an action to recover a balance alleged to be due on a building contract, where the contract provided- that the work should be done under the direction of the architect whose decision should be conclusive, it is reversible error for the court to refuse to permit the plaintiff to show “that the architect made a mistake either in the plans or the specifications, which rendered it physically impossible to comply with both, that when that fact was called to his attention he directed the plaintiff to go on and finish that building according to the plans, to build the floor level, regardless of the old floors in the old building, which the specifications required should be on a line with the new floor; that he was directed to do that both by the representative of the owner, the defendant, and by the architect, and in pursuance of that he did it; that when he went to the architect after completing the building and told him that he came for a settlement, he was told by the architect that there could be no settlement because the owners were not satisfied with the incline, and that they would have to be satisfied; and that he then called upon the defendant company and asked them for a settlement, and that they told him there could be no settlement unless he covered the incline with steel plates,” and that there was no provision in the contract for steel plates.</p> <p>A mere mistake in judgment on the part of the architect is not ground for judicial interference with his decision where it is stipulated in the contract that it shall be conclusive, unless it be so gross as necessarily to imply bad faith or a failure to exercise an honest judgment; but a demand of the owner after full performance by the contractor, which the' architect attempts to assist the owner in enforcing by refusing his certificate unless it is complied with, may be so unconscionable, or so utterly unreasonable and unwarranted on its

Judges: Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orladx, Pouter, Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.