Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co. v. Lentz, 9 P.2d 408( Ariz. S.C. 1932) B
ID: 1100247 • Letter: M
Question
Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co. v. Lentz, 9 P.2d 408( Ariz. S.C. 1932)
Background: A contractor entered into a written agreement to construct a building according to plans and specifications prepared by the Architect, Nolan. It was expressly stipulated that the owner should not be liable for any extras or additions to the contract unless pursuant to a written order signed by the owner or a written order from the architect stating that the owner has authorized the change.
The architect orally approved some changes which were performed by the contractor. The contractor seeking to recover for these extras filed a court action arguing that the architect was acting as agent for the owner, and therefore the owner was bound by the requests for extras made by the architect.
Task: If you were the presiding judge, how would you rule in this case and why?
Would your decision have been different if the architect had signed the orders and stated that the owner had authorized them? In the latter case, would the owner have had any recourse? Explain.
Does the contractor have any recourse against the architect?
How would the contractor prove that the owner had waived the provision of the contract?
Explanation / Answer
If I was the judge for this case, I would rule that the architect has indeed violated the contract since he has approved some of the changes being made by the contractor without letting the owner actually know about them. In a sense the owner was living by the bounds of the architect and having ot accept anything he said since because of his credentials making things fairly unfair and only adding unnecessary cost to the overall construction.
If the architect had signed the orders and stated that the owner had authorized them then my decision would have been in favor of the architect assuming the owner had actually agreed o them in the first place and not just the architect himself saying he did when he really hadn't. In this case the owner would have don't had much recourse but rather a loss form the extra recommendations the architect had agreed to.
The contractor could have recourse against the architect assuming the owner takes his side, and goes against the architect for unnecessarily adding extra installments to the building which are deemed to be unnecessary if proven so.
In that the owner had waived the provision of the contract there could be a form of document perhaps the owner had signed such as the contract itself or perhaps a messaging conversation sating this if no other evidence exists. Either way the most important factors would come down to the contractual agreement,rather than just what they had said.
Hope this helps, good luck.