The ordinary contract provides that the contractor shall furnish proper facilities for inspection by the architect, and shall replace materials and take down work condemned by the architect as unsound, improper or failing to conform to the contract. The architect is under obligations to the owner to use reasonable diligence to see that the materials used and the work done conform to the plans and specifications, and will be liable for damage caused by failure to use such diligence. Nevertheless the matter of inspection is so related to other functions of the architect, such as the granting of certificates, and the settlement of disputed points, that it seems the architect must, in many cases at least, act in a quasi-judicial capacity, rather than as agent for the owner, in making inspections.

The architect should require the contractor to pull down and to do over any work visibly not in accordance with the plans and specifications. The exact means by which the architect may make his inspection are not defined. In one case it was held that the architect might properly drill enough holes in metal columns reasonably to satisfy himself they were of the required thickness. Of course any method of inspection which substantially injured or weakened the work would not under ordinary circumstances be permissible. Where parts of the work are concealed before the architect has had an opportunity to inspect them, assuming that the architect was properly performing his duty of inspecting and that such concealment when made was a necessary part of the contractor's work, it would seem that the architect could have the covered part removed so that he may inspect the interior. If this interior should prove to be made of poorer material or workmanship than that called for by the contract, the architect might order it removed and replaced correctly, and the cost of the tearing down for inspection, the removal, and the replacing should all bo paid for by the contractor. But if the interior proved to be according to the contract, it would seem that the owner should pay the cost of the tearing down and rebuilding, and that allowance for any delay caused thereby should be made to the contractor. But when the architect delays or is remiss in his inspection or in making objections to the work or material, and in consequence thereof parts of the work or material are concealed without any wrong intent on the part of the contractor, but in the ordinary course of the work, then it would seem that the architect should bear the expense of removing the concealing parts even when the concealed parts are not in accordance with the plans and specifications. Again, it seems that if the contractor concealed part of his work for the purpose of avoiding inspection of it, and such concealment was in no way due to wrongful delay in inspection by the architect, then the contractor should pay the cost of tearing down, removing and replacing the concealing parts, even though the interior proved to be in accordance with the plans and specifications. In short, the builder must give the architect a reasonable opportunity to inspect the work and materials, and the architect on his part must use his right of inspection within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.

In view of the above observations it is desirable to insert in the contract a provision that the inspection of work which cannot be examined properly during the architect's ordinary visits of supervision, shall be made at the expense of the contractor on the demand of the architect.