Skip to main content
· 1/5/1914

Miller & Sons Co. v. Homeopathic Medical & Surgical Hospital & Dispensary

Citations

  • 243 Pa. 502
  • 90 A. 394
  • 1914 Pa. LEXIS 653

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Building contracts — Defect in soil — Reconstruction —Plans and specifications — Architects—Responsibility of architects — Construction of contract — Intention.</p> <p>1. Where the soil upon which a structure is being erected under a building contract is insufficient to support the building, and it is impossible to erect a substantial building there on the foundation supported by the footings provided in the drawings, the rule of impossibility of completion, for which the contractor is not responsible, is applicable.</p> <p>Murphy v. National Bank, 184 Pa. 208, followed.</p> <p>2. Where the agreement between the parties to a building contract does not provide simply that the contractor shall furnish certain materials and do certain work in the construction of the building upon a certain lot of ground, in accordance with definite plans of construction, but gives to the architect employed by the owner to prepare the plans and specifications and to supervise the construction plenary power and control over the contractor, the architect’s judgment being final as to the quality and quantity of the material and work authorized, the meaning of the plans and specifications and their sufficiency for the erection of the building and his authority complete to make any changes in the work he deemed desirable and to change the plans and specifications at his pleasure, the contractor being compelled to submit and erect the building accordingly, with the provision that the owner could discharge the contractor if he failed to comply with the architect’s orders, the rule of absolute liability of the contractor for defective plans and specifications and insufficiency of the soil to support the building is not applicable.</p> <p>3. Where in such a ease the specifications clearly contemplate that the soil tests should be made by the architect and for the purpose to enable him to determine the sufficiency of the soil to sustain the building on the foundations with the foot

Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mesteezat, Mestrezat, Potter

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.