Designer's legal requirements on giving advice

E

E.S Tech.

Registered User
Messages
4
Would anyone know what is the legal implications of a construction/planning designer, i.e architect, engineer, etc advising a client on a particular product/material if they have an affiliation with the said product/material.

Could the designer be sued or discredited from acting as a designer if a compeditor to the said product/material sought to do so?
 
I can't see a legal problem, but depending on the product, reputation for independence could be an issue.

It might be no harm declaring the interest to clients if any potential conflict arises (i.e. using the product/material).
 
If I were a customer I'd expect independent advice from the designer I'd be hiring. I'd also expect them to declare any interest, if any, in any product they be recommending.

I'd feel hard done by if this was done and I subsequently found out that the designer I hired had a vested interest.

For 'honesty' purposes .... declare all interests and as well as recommending 'your own' give the alternatives also .... pros and cons of all.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick replies.

As it's obvious I am speaking from personal experience here i'll give some further information to get your opinions if you don't mind.

I, a planning consultant/designer, have been approached by a new building system supplier to become a technical director (designing details, etc) in return for a small shareholding in this company.
The building system name itself would not be identified in the my planning drawings but the type of building system may be if the client was acceptable to this type of build. E.g If I was a director in a specific timber frame supplier, and specified a timber frame on the drawings. (P.S Its not a timber frame company).

Independant reputation as you say is highly important and I would aim to provide an unbiased advice by giving the pro's and con's of all systems including the system i'd be involved be.

The client would still have an option to go with compeditive manufacturers systems at tender stage and choice will no doubt be primarly based on price.

So to sum up, once I declare all interests to clients prior to advising them, and possibly even declaring it on my website you would see no legal implications from compeditive manufacturers of this or other building systems. Is that correct?
 
Victoria University of Manchester v. Hugh Wilson & Ors [1984]
Judge John Newey: "For architects to use untried, or relatively untried materials or techniques cannot in itself be wrong, as otherwise the construction industry can never make any progress. I think, however, that architects who are venturing into the untried or little tried would be wise to warn their clients specifically of what they are doing and to obtain their express approval."

Richard Roberts Holdings Ltd v. Douglas Smith Stimson Partnership [1988]
Judge John Newey: "The architects were employed for the design of the whole scheme of which the linings were an integral part. The architects did not know about linings, but part of their expertise as architect was to be able to collect information about materials of which they lacked knowledge and/or experience and to form a view about them. If the architects felt that they could not form a reliable judgment about a lining for a tank they should have informed the employer of that fact and advised them to take other advice.."

DISCLAIMER - IF YOU NEED REAL ADVICE (and it sounds like you do) THEN GO AND TALK TO A REAL PROFESSIONAL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top