AN AGREEMENT entered into this 15th day of September, 1907, by and between...................., of Chicago, Owner, party of the first part, and...................., also of Chicago, Builder, party of the second part:

Witnesseth: That the said party of the second part, for and in consideration of the sum of Five Thousand (5,000) Dollars, in payments as set forth in the specification, agrees to construct a city dwelling for the said party of the first part, at the corner of..........Ave. and...........St.,

City of Chicago, in accordance with drawings numbered..............and specifications all prepared therefor by...................Architect.

Which drawings and specifications are a part of and the basis of this agreement.

In consideration of the foregoing, the said party of the first part agrees to pay to the said party of the second part the full sum of Five Thousand (5,000) Dollars, in payments and under conditions as fully set forth in the specification.

In witness of the foregoing, the parties aforesaid here set their hands work, which may in a very material way affect the operation of the contract, and possibly destroy its force notwithstanding the fact that its basis is sound. As the contract is an agreement to do a certain specific thing, it follows that, if any change is made in any of the matter which goes to make up that specific thing so that some other specific thing is substituted, the terms of the contract are not filled, and such changes, unless properly guarded, can be made the basis of refusal on the part of either the Owner or the Builder to abide by all the conditions covered by the contract. Questions of this description are among the most serious which arise in general architectural practice.

As buildings progress, the Owner and often the Architect see items which, if changed, would improve the result; and as the depar-ture from the specific thing contracted for appears slight, the Builder is in a general way either requested or directed to make the change. Also, in the progress of the work, the Builder often finds it possible for him to make better arrangements for materials, etc., by making substitution, and, considering the change of little moment, proceeds to make it.

In the first of the above cases, the Owner or the Architect is surprised when he finds that modifications made by either are the basis for an extra charge of some magnitude, and that it is also used as an excuse (and it is generally valid) for several days' delay in the completion of the work.

In the second case, the Builder is surprised to find his substitution the basis of a demand that he make a material deduction from the contract price.

In either case, the Architect is blamed by both parties - and often justly so - for allowing matters to drift into the existing conditions; and it is not unusual for the Owner and Builder to get together and settle their differences, without changing their opinion of the Architect.

Therefore, after the signing of the contract, it should be the special province of the Architect to see that as few changes as possible are made; and, when it is advisable to make changes, to see also that all the conditions affected thereby are fully understood, and that such understanding is expressed in writing signed by both parties.

It is not the intention of the above to intimate that desirable changes should be abandoned in order to avoid complicating the contract situation, because there is no work in which improvements cannot be made as it progresses; but emphasis is laid on the suggestion that such changes should be as few as possible, and should never be allowed at all unless there is a distinct advantage gained to the Owner, and that, in consenting to any changes, the case should be put in such formal shape that there can be no later misunderstanding.

As the question of time is generally important to the Owner, the Architect should see that all details are furnished within the specified time, as it is unreasonable to expect the Builder to complete the work on time if he is delayed in the receipt of his drawings. Such delay is generally a sufficient excuse for extension of the contract time for completing the work. Special care should be taken that the modification on the details be not of such a character as can be used as a basis for demands for extra compensation beyond contract prices

Under ordinary conditions such as prevail in private practice in work of not large magnitude, a simple document is all that is necessary to set forth the final relations of Owner and Builder, in form somewhat as follows: