Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
inspections every two weeks, is the architect
liable if defective work is done between
inspections and is not visible subsequently?
Because these questions are actual questions (albeit somewhat shortened), it is possible to
see that in many cases the question itself is defective. This question reminds me of the man
in a car in St Ives asking the way to Belfast; he should not be starting from there.
An architect's contract which stipulates inspections every two weeks makes the situation
inquestioninevitable.First,thelawofaveragesdeterminesthatatleastsomedefectivework
will be done and covered up between inspections, and second, if the contractor knows that
the architect will inspect only every two weeks, it will make sure that any inadequate work
carried out between inspections is covered up before the architect next arrives on site. This
kind of arrangement is positively asking for trouble. The contractor is only human and the
temptation to skimp should not be offered.
Although, as has been seen from previous answers about inspections, the architect is not
expected to find every little defect, the architect is expected to take reasonable care to see
that important parts of the structure are carefully inspected. An architect should never offer
the client an appointment document which limits inspections to every two weeks. If the cli-
ent asks the architect to sign a bespoke appointment in those terms, the architect has a duty
to advise the client that such a provision is wholly inadequate. The architect should not ac-
ceptappointmentifthosetermsareincluded.Itiscommonnowforarchitects tohaveaterm
intheirappointmentswhichsaysthatthefeeincludesafixednumberofvisitstosite.Again,
the problem is that the number and frequency of visits to site can only be decided once the
contractor has started onsite and the architect has had a chance to assess workmanship, pro-
gress and so on.
An architect who is appointed to inspect at fixed intervals or for a fixed number of in-
spections can safeguard against liability for failure to inspect something important only by
ignoring the fixed intervals or numbers of inspections and simply inspecting when it is ap-
propriate to do so. Therefore, the strict answer to the question as posed is that the architect
in those circumstances is leaving him or herself open to liability.
