the Ballast Review Manual states that: "In architecture and Construction, the agent is the Architect, the principal is the Owner, [...]"
The paragraph continues: "[...] when the agent consents to act on behalf of and represent the interests of the principal, [...]" (Ballast, 2-10, "Agency").
However, the AHPP states that: "Under a typical owner-architect agreement, the architect [...] is not the owner's agent [...]". (AHPP, p.1074, "Fiduciary Duties").
These two statements seem contradictory.
Until reading about the Fiduciary Duties, I was sure the Architect was indeed the Owner's Agent, meaning, he/she acted on the Owner's best interest (except of course, for the health and welfare of the public).
For the ARE purposes, should we intend the Agency relationship as a "lower" form of fiduciary duty, but insurable?
How will this be represented in the AREs? Can this be an issue?
Please sign in to leave a comment.