Smitty Two writes:
In article . com,
dpb wrote:



Of course, by then you'll probably have convinced the architect he
doesn't want you as a client anyway as you're going to be far more
hassle than a very small job could possibly be worth so you'll then
get to start all over searching for an architect and repeat...

I agree with this, meaning no disrespect to the OP, he seems like a
nuisance client who will want to fuss over every aspect of the project,
repeatedly second-guessing the design aesthetics, and myriad
insignificant details as the design and construction progresses. My
suggestion to the OP is to forget about the attorneys and the contracts,
find an architect whom you trust, and then actively demonstrate that
trust by getting the hell out of the way and letting him do his work.

Maybe before engaging flame, you should actually read what the OP (me)
wrote. Then you can worry about "disrespect"

The major gist of my post is whether one even needs a contract for
a small job, particularly if the architect seems reasonable and has
good references.

Since you seem to be reading impaired and quick on the insinuations, I
will repeat that my only issue was that the form contract seems to
primarily protect the architect and hence be at best worthless to me
and at worse harmful. This leaves me with two choices: go without a
contract or find another "standard" contract that is more neutral or
homeowner favorable. Having a lawyer write and negotiate a contract
from scratch seems like a non-starter from both an expense and a
relationship perspective -- indeed, such an approach is likely to
create exactly the legal/adversarial relationship that you seem to
think I want.