" writes:
On May 29, 9:12 pm, blueman wrote:
We are about to engage an architect for a master bedroom suite
renovation -- no change to footprint of the house, just gutting of two
rooms and adjacent bathroom.

We are planning on paying the architect based on an hourly rate for
design and as-needed supervision during construction. We are
considering an hourly rate vs. fixed sum or percent of the project
since the scope of the project and our needs during construction our
uncertain.

We were wondering what type of contract should we be looking for with
the architect.

The vanilla contracts he showed us seems to be better at binding us
and absolving the architect of any liability rather than protecting
our interests. (btw, his references are impeccable and he seems to be
a really decent guy -- in fact, he says he usually works without a
contract).

- Would we be better off not having a contract and just paying him
after each stage of the design is completed and relying on standard
tort law if he fails to perform according to "standards" of his
profession? (I know that this would go against the grain of the
standard advice to always have a contract...)

- Do you know of any sample architect contracts that are fair and
could be adopted for our use?

I would speak to two or three of the architect's recent clients.
You may find it less trouble to work without a contract and pay him
each week.
For years, I worked without a contract and both I and my clients were
satisfied.
It is quite possible for either party to make life difficult for the
other - with or without a contract.
T.

I agree and that was my inclination but just wanted to check to make
sure I wasn't being "crazy" to follow references and trust rather than
the legal/contract path.