106 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



contained in the contract as to the accuracy of the bills of 

 quantities only affected the relations between the builder and 

 the building-owner. It was pointed out, however, that the 

 quantity-surveyor, if he did anything wrong, would be liable 

 to his architect and the building-owner for any damage caused 

 to them. 



. While an architect may be held liable, at the suit of a 

 builder, for mistakes in a bill of quantities, if he was expressly 

 employed to take them out (see Bolt v. Thomas, reported in 

 Beven on Negligence, 1895, Vol. II., p. 1370, and noted Chap. V., 

 10, ante), he cannot be held liable when the quantities are 

 not made the basis of the contract. Thus in a later case 

 (Young v. Blake tf 1887, 2 H. B. C. 106) a firm of architects 

 took out quantities and supplied them to the builders, and 

 were paid by them. The contract contained the usual clause 

 which stated that the quantities were believed to be correct, 

 " but should any error be found therein ... it shall be law- 

 ful and in the power of the architects to measure any or all 

 the works contained and described in the said bills of quanti- 

 ties and to adjust the same." On completion of the work the 

 builder sued both the building-owner and the architect for 

 damages occasioned by alleged errors in the bills. The 

 building-owner was excused because there was no warranty ; 

 and the architects were held not liable because they occupied 

 a ^asi-judicial capacity, and must be taken to have exercised 

 their judgment under the clause above set out. Commenting 

 on this, Mr. Justice Grove said : " I think the meaning of that 

 must be that it must be left to the discretion of the architect 

 to re-measure if he finds there is reasonable ground to think 

 that there is an error or mis-statement of the works, and that 

 then he may re-measure and may adjust them. . . . Then 

 he may adjust them between the parties. That being so, it 

 appears to me that the architect stands in a quasi- judicial 

 position between the parties ; he is architect not merely as a 

 person who is employed as the agent of the building-owner for 

 all purposes, nor is he a person who is employed by the builder 

 in any sense so as to be liable to him as a person at his will 

 and pleasure to be ordered to do anything because the builder 

 is dissatisfied." 



The liabilities of a quantity-surveyor were fully discussed 

 in the case of School Board for London v. Northcroft, 1889, 

 2 H. B. C. 142. There the plaintiffs had employed the 



