Architectural Law and Contracts 541 Assignment 2 Question 1: y y This is a matter of life management rather than architectural practice

management Imbalance in life is typical for an architect due to the nature of work (long hours). However for the case of Caesar, much of the pressure arises due to personal mentality, which is putting his girlfriend second to his materialistic achievement, the Ferrari.Besides that, his reluctance to compromise being a boyfriend and a designer causes the disrupted balance. Since Chantelle desires simple gesture of love, Caesar can put aside the mind as a self-righteous designer and be a normal boyfriend getting Chantelle a card or a heart shaped chocolate and tells her he loves her. He could however design the gift that he sees fit and personally crafts it for Chantelle as a sign of sincerity. Not being the sole proprietor in his firm, he can easily channel part of his workload to his partner, Jessie whenever circumstances require. Taking a break from job is indeed possible sparing more time for his personal life. Having his mother as secretary, he can often rely on her as a mediator or consultant in both work and domestic life. I believe his mother, with both feet in the situation of the firm and her sons personality, would be able to offer valuable advice for both Caesar and Chantelle to reconcile. However, concerning ethics of work, his mother acted unprofessionally as a secretary in the office, by acknowledging the office of Caesars personal problems. That would not do anything but escalates Caeasars focus on the fax. In dwelling, live close to the ground. In thinking, keep to the simple. In conflict, be fair and generous. In governing, dont try to control. In work, do what you enjoy. In family life, be completely present. Lao Tzu, Taoist and Philosopher Imagine life as a game in which you are juggling some five balls in the air. You name them work, family, health, friends and spirit and youre keeping all of these in the air. You will soon understand that work is a rubber ball. If you drop it, it will bounce back. But the other four balls family, health, friends and spirit are made of glass. - Brian Dyson, CEO Coca Cola Lu SengKiat 15416139

Question 2: y y A written agreement would certainly clarify the terms of agreement between Caesar with Built Object Constructions regarding additional services and additional fees. Site surveying services could have been clearly stated of its scope for the architect and claimable travel fees through written agreement. The disputes clearly arises from the unilateral mistakes from both sides , seeing the architect relies on the builder( CAAClause 4.03) to provide sufficient and accurate site data while the builder expects the architect to go in detail on the Shark Bay site other than the photographs. Besides that, Caesar firm is required to deliver the drawings and documents in a short 4 days, with little time reserved for detailed site study below ground. Thus, in other sense, Caesar firm fulfilled their scope of work by on time drawings and documents delivery. They only breached their agreement by not visiting the site. However, its unlikely for them to have known the subterranean cable on the site as the task would be beyond reasonable architects specialty. In reality, the oral agreement in good faith between both parties causes these terms to remain ambiguous. There is no statement that claim for travel fee will be reimbursed although might occur upon final cost of works, thus Caesar is not obliged to visit the site beyond manageable distance. Built Object Construction should have considered the appointment of site specialists, knowing the variations of site for the kiosks and also the long running rapport between the two parties. As Caesar doesnt have any direct contractual relationship with WA Department of Conservation and Environment, his firm is not liable for the cost for extension of work. However the site related cost still

incurs due to Caesars negligence on professional duty. He is liable for giving negligent advice on the site condition and not foreseeing the consequences relevant to the cable and lack of potable water. As agreed in their oral agreement, Caesar firm is expected to each site of the kiosks, which he breached by not doing so for the fifth. The certain extent, they owed contractual liability to their client. I would think that a written agreement would reduce the their liability on the additional cost by stating clearly the scope of architects duty, limit of liability, the appointment of specialist and total cost of work.

Question 3: y In the case of injury at site, Caesars firm shall not be full liability of any sort unless it is due to error of architects instructions and specification. Since Caesar, as agreed in oral agreement, is tasked for design, document and limited contract administration with no contractual obligation on site supervision, site supervising might be appointed to a site coordinator from Built Object Company. Thus, the incident occurred if not by architects error in advice, would be the error of coordination by those on site. Theres no breach of contract by the architect. On the other hand,Caesar would owe the duty of care in tort to the injured worker as he as the professional should foresee the risk of suspended structure during construction and injury incident due to human error. In this case, Caesar has exercised competent skills to required standard of care as an architect, proven by the success from the previous 4 kiosks. The evidences of breach of implied duty of care too are unclear.

Question 4: y The terms of oral agreement between Caesar and the builder again remain ambiguous of the limit of works, result of unconscionable conduct. Without any written proof, they might have to refer to previous construction contracts to determine the liability of architect. However, the negligence on Caesar part for not visiting Shark Bay is clear that his firm is directly contractually liable to the cost for the cable relocation and potable water transport. It is arguable that the builder as the client or even the Western Australia Department is obliged to provide all information in the brief required by the architect to complete the services as stated in CAA Clause I.c, particularly regarding the hard to miss wind farm issue. Furthermore the builder could have appointed specialist to conduct detailed site survey, realizing the fast tracked nature of the project and the different site conditions. The total project cost as mentioned in CAA, included contingencies, which mean the sum for rectification site conflicts would have been discussed in the oral contract. The sum suggested by the builder can be disputed. The success of the first four proved that Caesar displayed professional standard of care in their tasks, showing no negligence in competence. According to AIAs CAA Clause H.2.b, the architect is not liable to client in respect of any indirect, consequential or special losses. In Caesars case, it would mean the time extension fee between the builder and their client would not be imposed on Caesar as it is builders decision having fixed fee contract rather than allowing liquidated damages fees.It is according to Acumen, the builder is responsible to keep the project on track by all means and also should foresee the potential delay of work caused by differing site conditions.

16 February 2011 Built Object Constructions 221 St Georges Terrace, Level 29, the Forrest Centre, PERTH WA 6000 ATTENTION: Peter Griffin Dear Peter, Re: Kiosk Additional Cost on Cable Relocation and Water Supply at Shark Bay We wish to formally explain on the problematic site issues discovered on the Kiosk 5 in Shark Bay and express our concern on the allegation that our firm should fully bear the additional costs arises from those circumstances in your writing to us. You should understand that Magenta and Johnson Architects cherishes the long running business relationship with you and I strongly believe we can reach a middle ground on the situation though plausible remedies. There are conditions you should be aware of the absence of information regarding the subterranean cable and on site potable water supply: 1. The final site plan issued for Shark Bay kiosk was essentially based on the information and photographs provided by your company. The previous 4 kiosks plan were similarly drawn in reference to the site data you provided and evidently to be successful and none site issues arose. My firm thus was led to believe in the accuracy and adequacy of the site data provided and worked accordingly. Thus, there is no necessity to conduct the time consuming site survey considering the urgency of the project. The subterranean cables for wind farms are clearly unforeseeable as the initial commission of the project didnt imply the presence of the wind farms nearby. Such important issue is ought to be clarified by Western Department of Conservation and Environment being the client. Under the Institute's Client and Architect Agreement , Clause 4.03, it is the client's responsibility to provide all particulars concerning the site, including survey information. They are obliged to provide detailed site survey in the initial project brief prior to commission. Comprehensive site survey information provided by a licensed surveyor is preferable, and in many cases essential, in the implementation of any building project. 2. Due to the ambiguity of the terms in our oral contract, Magenta and Johnson Architects is not obliged to conduct extensive site survey as the sub consultant to Western Department of Conservation and Environment. Furthermore, there was no statement of the degree of detail for the investigation and the additional funding for this particular site, Shark Bay. We are concerned of the fairness on our side to bear the full cost in part of relocation of the cable as we believe there have been miscommunications in oral agreement and dispute of fees on both sides as well as the project commissioner.

Yours sincerely, Caesar Magenta for Magenta and Johnson Archtiects