Whatever powers the architect has, under the building contract, which is a contract between the owner and the contractor, are not powers which he himself can enforce. The parties to that contract have not, by virtue thereof, bound themselves to him. They have made mutual promises, and have given to the acts of the architect, as between themselves, a certain force. By virtue of this agreement either party to it may hold the other to this provision giving effect to the architect's action. But the architect himself cannot insist upon having that effect given to his acts. In a sense, it may be said that he has rights, but, legally speaking, he has no rights under the contract. "Whatever contractual rights he has as against the owner or contractor must be by virtue of some contract to which he is a party. And whatever similar rights the other parties have against him must be by virtue of some contract to which he is a party. To illustrate - the building contract usually provides for inspection by the architect. Should the contractor refuse to permit this inspection, the refusal would be a breach of his contractual duty to the owner; but the architect himself would have no legal cause of complaint against the contractor, for the contractor's promise in regard to inspection was made, not to the architect, but to the owner; the only legal cause for complaint would therefore be in the owner. Bearing this in mind, what, merely as between the owner and contractor, are the duties and powers with which the architect is invested by the building contract?

*See Appendix I.