Reilly v. Rodef Sholem Congregation

Citations

• 243 Pa. 528
• 90 A. 345
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 657

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Building contracts — Arbitration clause — Architect as arbitrator — Matters affecting architects themselves — Questions for the jury — Evidence.</p> <p>1. The parties to- a building or construction contract may legally provide therein that disputes arising out of the contract shall be submitted for decision to the architect or engineer and that his-conclusion or judgment shall be a final adjudication of the questions submitted.</p> <p>2. Arbitration clauses in building contracts, however, refer to questions arising between the contractors and owners and not to' questions that concern the performance of duties by the architects' themselves. If questions arise between the contracting parties not included in the arbitration clauses, or if the questions raised relate to failure or dereliction in the performance of duties by the architects themselves, the right to have these matters passed upon by a jury cannot be denied upon the ground of failure to arbitrate:</p> <p>3. In an action by a contractor against an owner upon a building contract, it appeared that the contract contained an embracing arbitration clause whereby practically all disputes were to bé re-ferred to the architects. The plaintiff made out a prima«facie case for recovery which was met in part by the defendant’s introducing an award of the architects under the arbitration clause charging the plaintiff with delay in completion of the work in the sum of $12,000. The court below admitted the award, of the architects in evidence and excluded an offer by plaintiff to show that the delay in completing the building was chargeable chiefly to the delay of the architects in furnishing certain necessary detailed drawings.. Held, (1) that the award of the architects was properly admitted in evidence, and (2) that the court committed error in excluding the plaintiff’s offer to show that the delay was the fault of the architects.</p>