Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
employer says that certain work is not to his
or her satisfaction?
Under most forms of traditional contract, it is the reasonable satisfaction of the architect
which determines whether standards of workmanship, goods or materials are acceptable. It
is possible to have a contract where the satisfaction is a matter for the employer, but the
problem there is that the employer is not independent, and any decision would be subject to
the strict scrutiny of a court. A court would expect that any exercise of the employer's judg-
ment would not be unreasonable, capricious or dishonest.
5
Where the contract (such as SBC) states that certain goods, materials or workmanship are
to be to the reasonable satisfaction of the architect, the employer's approval or otherwise
should not concern the contractor. In practice, of course, if the employer indicates dissat-
isfaction, it is a brave architect who ignores it and expresses satisfaction to the contractor.
Most matters of this kind can be sorted out by architect and employer discussing the matter.
However,iftheemployercannotpersuadethearchitectthatheorsheshouldnotbesatisfied,
the architect is obliged to ignore the employer.
What can a contractor do if it suspects that the architect is being unduly influenced by the
views of the employer? That is a difficult question. It is not easy to prove that one person
is being influenced by another unless one can point to an opinion given and subsequently
changed. Architects do not usually register satisfaction until they issue the final certificate,
which is conclusive about those things for which the architect's satisfaction or approval is
required. Nevertheless, an architect may be obliged to express satisfaction in cases where
the contractor is progressing with the work and subsequent dissatisfaction will involve sub-
stantialcost.Insuchinstances,acontractorwhoasksthearchitecttoconfirmthatsomething
is satisfactory is behaving perfectly reasonably and ought to expect a reasonable response.
That is presumably the reason for the inclusion of clause 3.20 in SBC, which requires the
architect to inform the contractor of dissatisfaction within a reasonable time of the execu-
tion of work. That clause is probably too far reaching, as noted elsewhere in this topic. A
contractor that believes that the architect is being influenced by the employer can seek ad-
judication on the matter. Although it may be difficult to convince an adjudicator that the
architect has been influenced by the employer, it will be easier to convince the adjudicator
that an architect ought to have been reasonably satisfied in any given situation, because that
will simply involve the adjudicator in reading what is specified and deciding whether what
the contractor has done complies.
