Payne v. Roberts

Citations

• 214 Pa. 568
• 64 A. 86
• 1906 Pa. LEXIS 699

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Building contract — Construction of contract — Arbitration clause —Fraud—Collusion.</p> <p>A building contract provided that if the work done or materials provided by the contractor should be unsatisfactory to the architects, the contractor would on notice immediately remove the unsatisfactory work or materials, and supply others satisfactory-to the architects. It was further provided that in case of default by the.contractor, the owner, after ten days’ notice to the contractor, might provide other workmen and materials to complete the work. In another part of the contract there was this provision: “If' any question should arise during the progress of the work, or the settle^ ment of accounts, it is to be referred to the architect whose decision shall be binding upon both parties; but there is reserved the right of final decision in all such questions by two disinterested parties, etc.” After the work was under way, the architects notified the contractor that certain walls were unsatisfactory, and should be removed. No attention was paid to this notice, and the owner after another notice of ten days to -the contractors took possession and completed the work. The evidence was insufficient to justify a finding of any fraud on the part -of the architects, or of any collusion between the architects and owner. Held, (1) that the contractor was obliged to make the work satisfactory to the architects; (2) that having failed to do so the owner was justified in taking possession of the woi’k and completing it; (3) that the arbitration clause did not apply to any question in which the architects were involved as parties, but only to questions arising between the owner and the contractor; (4) that the arbitration clause did not include questions that might arise between the parties themselves relating to the work or material employed.</p>