GIBSON
v.
MURPHY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this 1958 case, the court considered whether an air conditioning engineer could sue a building owner based on an allegedly authorized relationship with architects hired by the owner. The court held that architects engaged to prepare plans and specifications are not general agents of the owner and cannot bind the owner to contractual obligations with third parties for services in connection with plan preparation.
The court held that an air conditioning engineer cannot sue the building owner in these circumstances because an architect employed to prepare plans and specifications is not a general agent of the owner and cannot bind the owner to contractual obligations with third parties for services related to plan preparation.
“Where an architect is employed to prepare plans and specifications, his relation to his employer extends no further than the performance of those services, and he is not a general agent of the owner.”
Establishes the limited scope of an architect's agency relationship with the building owner
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant engaged architects to design a building and requested they include air conditioning facilities. The architects then employed the plainti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This cause came before me on the defendant’s motion to strike the complaint as a sham pleading.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendant engaged certain architects in connection with the construction of a building, that incidental to the employment of the architects defendant requested plans and specifications for the incorporation of air conditioning facilities in the proposed building, whereupon the architects employed plaintiff, as an air conditioning engineer, to furnish them the necessary data for that purpose — that defendant authorized the architects to employ an engineer to render such service.
*145The architects instituted suit in the circuit court to recover fees for their services, in which they claimed they obligated themselves to the plaintiff as such engineer in the sum of $400 for the air conditioning specifications. In the final judgment in that case (common law #17099-D) it is stated that — “Plaintiffs have failed to prove the item of $400 claimed.”
The question now presented to this court is — May the plaintiff as such air conditioning engineer sue the defendant on the theory that the architects were acting as his agents in employing him to furnish them the data required for their specifications?
The court is of the opinion that he can not. Where an architect is employed to prepare plans and specifications, his relation to his employer extends no further than the performance of those services, and he is not a general agent of the owner. See 5 C. J. 256. As to the preparation of plans, he acts for himself, and not as the owner’s agent — and he is liable for whatever assistance he receives. The owner is not liable for ideas given the architect in the preparation of his plans. See Mackay v. Benjamin Franklin Realty & Holding Co. (Pa.), 50 A. L. R. 1164.
The motion to strike the complaint is therefore granted.