Skip to main content
· 10/23/1918

Osterling v. First National Bank

Citations

  • 262 Pa. 448
  • 105 A. 633
  • 1918 Pa. LEXIS 674

Syllabus

<p>Building contracts — Architects—Extra compensation — Revised plans — Acting as arbitrator — Use of old material — “Dost of worlc” as basis for fixing compensation.</p> <p>1. An architect is not entitled to recover for services in preparing revised drawings for changes in the plans requested' by the owner in the course of building, under a contract providing that the architect “agrees” to furnish all necessary plans and specifications to erect the building for a commission of five per cent, upon the cost of the work where it appeared that the changes made during the progress of the building increased the total cost from $59,000 to $114,880, and that plaintiff had already received a commission on the latter amount as his compensation.</p> <p>2. An architect is not entitled to extra compensation for services rendered as an arbitrator in passing upon questions in dispute between the contractor and the owner where plaintiff agreed, in consideration of a certain percentage of the total cost of the building, to prepare the contracts and perform the “usual and customary services of an architect,” and where it appeared that he did in fact prepare the building contract and inserted the usual clause that questions in dispute were to be referred to him as architect, and that his decision should be conclusive.</p> <p>3. An architect undertaking to prepare plans and supervise the construction of a building at a certain percentage of the “cost of the work” is not entitled to an additional commission on the value of the material of the old building which was given the contractor to be used by him in the new building, it appearing that the architect had knowledge that the old building material was to be used and that the specifications prepared by him contained the provision that the old material “may be used in the new work upon the approval of the architect.”</p> <p>4. An architect is not entitled to extra compensation because there was delay in the construction of the building

Judges: Brown, Fox, Frazer, Moschzisker, Simpson, Walling

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.