HOLLEY
v.
WALKER
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.
An architect sued a client for compensation for architectural services rendered in preparing building plans, despite the client's initial requirement that the building cost approximately $30,000 and the completed plans resulting in bids of $47,371. The court held that although the architect failed to meet the client's cost specifications, the client's use of the plans to obtain financing constituted acceptance of the work, creating an obligation to pay reasonable compensation.
The architect is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered based on an implied contract. Although the architect failed to perform services in accordance with the client's cost request, the client's use of the plans to obtain financing constituted acceptance of the work, creating an obligation to pay the reasonable value of those services despite non-compliance with the original specifications.
“Had she then declined the plans, she would not have been indebted to the plaintiff, for the services rendered by plaintiff were not in accord with her request.”
Establishes that non-conforming services can be rejected without obligation to pay
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe architect submitted an unsigned written contract providing for 6% of building costs (75% for design work, 25% for supervision). The client request…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Value Of Services cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause was duly tried by the court.
An architect seeks compensation from a woman client for services in preparing plans and specifications for a building which was never built. At the outset, the architect submitted a form of written contract of employment to his client, under which he was to receive a total of 6% of cost of building, 75% of which would be for work prior to the supervising services, for which a charge of 25% of the total would be made. The contract of employment was not signed by the client.
She sought plans for an 8 apartment building in a non-luxury area, which would cost about $30,000 or not over $33,000. Her requirements were such that the architect thought he could not prepare proper plans for a building at that cost, but he did not so advise her. He did not guarantee any cost figure to her. On the other hand, she properly assumed that the cost would be about $30,000. When the plans were completed and the bids were obtained, the cost varied so the minimum bid was $47,371.
Had she then declined the plans, she would not have been indebted to the plaintiff, for the services rendered by plaintiff were not in accord with her request. The plaintiff had failed to perform his services as requested by defendant, which was to design an 8 apartment building costing about $30,000.
But, the defendant used these plans notwithstanding the estimated cost of construction, in order to obtain some financing for the project. This in law must be considered as an acceptance of the work by defendant. It created an obligation on her part to *57pay the reasonable value of those services even though they were not performed in accordance with her request.
A bill for the, architectural .service was submitted to the defendant. A third person made payments on account. The defendant did object to the bill over the telephone. There has been no account stated.
It therefore appears that the plaintiff is entitled to full reasonable compensation for the work performed by him, on the basis of his compliance with his implied contract. From the evidence, this would be three-fourths of 6% of $33,000, less $950 previously paid on account. Interest should accrue from July 1, 1953.
Thereupon, it is ordered that the plaintiff do have and recover from the defendant the sum of $593.68, which embraces the principal amount of $535, interest in the amount of $45.48, and court costs in the amount of $13.20, for all of which let execution issue.