Page 26 |
Previous | 26 of 847 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
2 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS t-19
Williams and Associates v. Products Corp.
available from plaintiffs. The agreement was signed after a
second meeting. Frank Williams, a partner in plaintiffs' firm,
and Rash were placed in charge of the project. Drawings for the
"Schematic Design Phase," the "Design Development Phase"
and the "Construction Documents Phase" were completed and
an estimate of the probable construction costs was generated.
This cost estimate was in the amount of $328,650.00 and was
presented to defendant along with an invoice for architectural
services rendered to date. Rash and MacP'wthur discussed the
estimate and the bill and, at Rash's suggestion, action on the
invoice and construction cost was deferred in order to obtain a
cost estimate from a contractor. The first estimate was received
from McDevitt and Street Construction Company (McDevitt)
and was, according to Rash, "so high that [plaintiffs] would
not recommend necessarily that a person enter into a negotiated
contract based on this proposal." Plaintiffs then sought, and
obtained, permission to submit the plans to another contractor.
The Laxton Construction Company (Laxton) returned an esti-mate
of $411,300.00 which reflected certain revisions of the
plans, including lower ceiling heights. Defendant abandoned
the project at this point and has refused to pay plaintiffs' fee.
Plaintiffs' evidence also indicated that the written agreement
contains no reference to the cost of the project, or its size, loca-tion,
appearance, type of construction or function other than
indicating that the project is to be a new manufacturing plant
and offices. The written agreement also states, "The Architect
shall consult with the Owner to ascertain the requirements of
the Project and shall confirm such requirements to the Owner."
Rash testified that the cost of a project is normally "a require-ment
of the Owner."
Defendant offered evidence, admitted over plaintiffs' ob-jections
that the evidence violated the par01 evidence rule, to
the effect that, prior to the execution of the written agreement,
defendant informed plaintiffs that defendant required a new
manufacturing plant containing 25,000 square feet and costing
$250,000.00. Rash indicated at that time his understanding of
this requirement by circling the fee percentage of 6.3 on the
standard fee schedule opposite $250,000 and under category
"D," "Simple Manufacturing Plants." Rash told MacArthur
that the judicious use of materials and workmanship could
accomplish striking results for about $10.00 to $11.00 per square
foot. After the probable cost estimate of $328,650.00 was sub-mitted,
MacArthur met with Rash and reminded him that a
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.019, Spring Session 1973 - Fall Session Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 19, Spring Session 1973 - Fall Session Session 1973. Cited as 19 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 37.5 MB; 848 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_019.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 26 |
| Full Text | 2 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS t-19 Williams and Associates v. Products Corp. available from plaintiffs. The agreement was signed after a second meeting. Frank Williams, a partner in plaintiffs' firm, and Rash were placed in charge of the project. Drawings for the "Schematic Design Phase" the "Design Development Phase" and the "Construction Documents Phase" were completed and an estimate of the probable construction costs was generated. This cost estimate was in the amount of $328,650.00 and was presented to defendant along with an invoice for architectural services rendered to date. Rash and MacP'wthur discussed the estimate and the bill and, at Rash's suggestion, action on the invoice and construction cost was deferred in order to obtain a cost estimate from a contractor. The first estimate was received from McDevitt and Street Construction Company (McDevitt) and was, according to Rash, "so high that [plaintiffs] would not recommend necessarily that a person enter into a negotiated contract based on this proposal." Plaintiffs then sought, and obtained, permission to submit the plans to another contractor. The Laxton Construction Company (Laxton) returned an esti-mate of $411,300.00 which reflected certain revisions of the plans, including lower ceiling heights. Defendant abandoned the project at this point and has refused to pay plaintiffs' fee. Plaintiffs' evidence also indicated that the written agreement contains no reference to the cost of the project, or its size, loca-tion, appearance, type of construction or function other than indicating that the project is to be a new manufacturing plant and offices. The written agreement also states, "The Architect shall consult with the Owner to ascertain the requirements of the Project and shall confirm such requirements to the Owner." Rash testified that the cost of a project is normally "a require-ment of the Owner." Defendant offered evidence, admitted over plaintiffs' ob-jections that the evidence violated the par01 evidence rule, to the effect that, prior to the execution of the written agreement, defendant informed plaintiffs that defendant required a new manufacturing plant containing 25,000 square feet and costing $250,000.00. Rash indicated at that time his understanding of this requirement by circling the fee percentage of 6.3 on the standard fee schedule opposite $250,000 and under category "D" "Simple Manufacturing Plants." Rash told MacArthur that the judicious use of materials and workmanship could accomplish striking results for about $10.00 to $11.00 per square foot. After the probable cost estimate of $328,650.00 was sub-mitted, MacArthur met with Rash and reminded him that a |
