Architects - Construction Contracts - page 119

chitect lies in becoming involved in the project during the construction stage. If the archi-
tect agrees to answer any questions or to visit site to deal with any problem, it will be diffi-
cult to contend at a later date that the architect was not aware of any other problems on the
site.Althoughthearchitectmayhavetermsofengagementwhichexcludeanyinvolvement
during construction, that architect probably will be assuming responsibility by accepting a
subsequent invitation to visit site or to become involved by giving further advice.
As a professional person, it is for the architect to advise the client about the degree of
professional inspection and involvement required. It is not for the architect to dictate such
matters. The client's option is to accept the services which the architect advises are neces-
sary or not to accept them. Would a firm of solicitors agree to produce all the documents
requiredforatrialandsubsequentlyonlyattendcourtasandwhentheclientdecided(leav-
ing aside that the court rules would not allow it)? Would a surgeon perform a serious op-
eration and then agree to see the patient for follow-up consultations in accordance with the
patient'swishes?Oneonlyhastothinkofcomparable situations inotherprofessionstosee
that to expect the architect to attend site only as required by the employer or the contractor
is nonsensical.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

B L Holdings v Robert J Wood and Partners (1979) 12 BLR 1.
(2013) 148 Con LR 127.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) 50 BLR 1.
Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] 2 All ER 575.
(1987) 13 Con LR 68.
(1988) 44 BLR 33.
Smith v Eric S Bush [1989] 2 All ER 514.
(1986) 6 Con LR 85.
[1976] 1 All ER 785.
[1975] 3 All ER 901.
(1979) 11 BLR 1; partly reversed by the Court of Appeal, but not on this point (1980) 13 BLR 7 CA.
Henderson v Merritt Syndicates [1995]2AC145,(1994)69BLR26; White v Jones [1995]1AllER691;
Conway v Crow Kelsey & Partner (1994)39ConLR1; J Jarvis & Sons Ltd v Castle Wharf Developments
& Others [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 308.
West v Ian Finlay & Associates (2014) 153 Con LR 1 CA.
Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership Ltd [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 918.
West v Ian Finlay & Associates [2013] EWHC 868 (TCC).
[1963] 2 All ER 575.
Hunt & Others v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Others (2013) 148 Con LR 27; (2014) 155 Con LR 29 CA.
Formica Ltd v ECGD [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 692.
In re Wheatcroft (1877) 6 Ch 97.
Kaliszewska v John Clague & Partners (1984) 5 Con LR 62.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Frank Haslam Milan and Co Ltd (1996) 59 Con LR 33.
(1911) 75 JP 241.
Midland Land Reclamation Ltd & Another v Warren Energy Ltd (1997) EWHC 375 (TCC).
Rhodia International Holdings Ltd & Another v Huntsman International LLC [2007] EWHC 292.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24