Two contracts, two objects
| Architect's appointment | Works contract | |
|---|---|---|
| Object | design and supervision of execution | carrying out the works |
| Nature of obligation | principally of means | principally of result |
| Timing | before the permit application | after the firm is selected |
| Compulsory character | involvement is required | the choice of arrangement is free |
The difference in obligation is structural. The architect undertakes to deploy the skill expected of a diligent professional; the contractor undertakes to deliver conforming works.
That distinction is not absolute: some of the architect's obligations are of result, and some of the contractor's are of means. But it directs the burden of proof in a dispute.
Why they are not signed together
A chronological obviousness with practical consequences. The architect's contract precedes the works contract.
The architect's appointment comes first, since design precedes execution and the permit application presupposes drawings.
The works contract follows, once the project is defined and tenders received.
Between the two lies a period when the client is committed on design but not on construction. That is when the budget firms up and trade-offs remain possible, covered in the guide on construction costs per m².
A practical consequence: the architect's appointment must provide for what happens if the project does not proceed, failing which the question is settled by interpretation.
What neither covers by default
Four areas remain empty if nobody is assigned them. They cover tasks neither contract provides for.
Construction drawings. Depending on practice and contracts, they are prepared by the designer or by the contractor, and omitting that clause leaves a costly gap.
Coordination between firms, in a separate-trades arrangement, covered in the article on contractor and main contractor.
Site management, distinct from supervision of execution which belongs to the architect's monopoly.
Cost monitoring and checking interim valuations, which presuppose quantity surveying skill, covered in the guide on measurement and specification.
Those four areas sit at the heart of disputes, precisely because they belong to nobody by default.
Writing protects the drafter
A simple principle, often inverted in people's minds. The architect designs and supervises, the contractor executes.
Absent a clause, the question is settled by interpretation, and interpretation rarely favours whoever should have provided for it.
A professional who drafts their contract defines their scope. A professional who accepts a contract drafted by another accepts the other's scope.
That cuts both ways. A client who signs without reading accepts the limitations offered; a professional accepting a standard form without checking may find themselves bound beyond their appointment.
The special case of the Breyne Act
An interaction that changes the whole picture. It concerns how the two contracts fit together.
Where the Breyne Act applies, part of the contractual content is imposed: mandatory statements, deposit cap, guarantee, acceptance regime.
The contract then no longer defines everything, and a clause contrary to the act has no effect. That regime is covered in the branch on the Breyne Act.
Outside its scope, freedom of contract returns as the rule, which makes drafting all the more decisive.
The articles in this branch
The article on the clauses that protect covers the useful minimum content. The decisive clauses are listed there.
The article on the hierarchy of contract documents covers contradictions between documents. The order of priority is explained there.
The article on subcontracting and the contract chain covers effects towards third parties. The direct action is set out there.
This article reflects the position of the rules at the date of checking and serves professional orientation. It does not constitute legal advice and does not replace assessment of the individual case.