Architects’ Fitness for Purpose Obligation: Obligations of Means or Obligations of Result?
Architects’ Fitness for Purpose Obligation: Obligations of Means or Obligations of Result?

Summary/Abstract: There is a consensus among various legal systems that professional service providers must perform their duties with reasonable skill and care. However, it has been doubted whether their services must be compatible with the intended purpose of their clients. In the construction industry, the work of building contractors ought to fit the intended purpose of owners, and three theories have been proposed regarding the extension of this obligation to architects. Some believe that architects only bear the “obligation of means”, which only requires efforts to provide a suitable design without guaranteeing a specific result. A few others, however, believe that the architects’ duty is an “obligation of result”, which imposes strict liability on architects to provide a design compatible with the intention of their clients. A third and more fair theory has also been developed that differentiates architects’ obligations based on the type of structure. This article looks into these theories and the reasons behind each of them.

• Details
• Contents