"Edwin Pawlowski" writes:

"blueman" wrote in message
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.

The hourly rate system seems fine for your needs.

(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...)

Depends on your comfort level. I'd guess that you'd find out very soon if he
is working in your best interests and can terminate before much money is
spent. Personally, I'd work without a contract if I felt comfortable with
the guy, but that is a decision only you can make. If you have a problem
and he violated the contract, how much would it cost you to sue as compared
to the total cost he is billing you? Contracts are usually written in the
best interests of the lawyers that will be billing you to settle a minor
disagreement.

Agreed. That was my inclination but I have seen a lot of advocacy on
this group for contracts. His references are impeccable, he seems like
the most decent of guys, and I have no desire to every sue anybody
unless absolutely necessary.

Plus my maybe naive intuition is that you are never going to sue on
small mistakes (with or without a contract) and big mistakes (as in grossly
negligent) should allow you to recover with or without a
contract. Plus unless you started aggressively pursuing the
legal case, at best you would probably get some of your fees back
rather than the full damages.