JB/117/045/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/117/045/002: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
Petergh (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<p><note><!-- note in pencil -->6<lb/>
2. It would<lb/>
<unclear>put the</unclear> <gap/><lb/>
<gap/> <gap/><lb/>
against peculation</note><lb/>
Neither could <del>a contract the mode of contract</del> <add>the contract made</add> be depended<lb/>
upon as shutting the door absolutely against<lb/>
peculation. <del><unclear>It</unclear></del> In any building undertaking it is<lb/>
<del>not very common</del> rather <add>rare</add> I believe than otherwise<lb/>
for the <del>first</del> <add>original</add> contract to be adhered to without any<lb/>
variation: as the building advances, occasions for<lb/>
making additions or alterations present themselves:<lb/>
<del>thus if for the purpose of</del> <add>as far as</add> these alterations <add>extend</add> the<lb/>
proprietor, if no <del>fresh</del> contract is made, is <add>then</add> at the<lb/>
mercy of the builder: and in the making of such<lb/>
<add>fresh</add> contract, the builder will be apt to take his advantage<lb/>
in proportion to the degree in which <add>he supposes</add> the proprietor<lb/>
<add>to</add>  have the alteration at heart. A building of so new<lb/>
<add>a kind <del>must</del> seems more particularly <del><unclear>expand</unclear></del> <add><del>apt</del></add> to able to<lb/>
afford occasion for such changes.</add></p>
 
Your objection against allowing an <del>per cent</del><lb/>
unlimited per centage to the architect on the amount<lb/>
of the expenditure I feel in its full force: it is giving<lb/>
a premium on profusion. <del>Would not the objection</del> <add>To <del><gap/></del> take away</add><lb/>
<del>be removed by making the architect pay a limited</del> <add>the temptation, <add>why not</add> fix the recompense whatever be the expenditure</add><lb/>
<del>sum for the whole?</del> <del>Suppose the sum allotted <add>£</add> <gap/></del>,<lb/>
000: <del>so much per cent <gap/> 5</del> <add>Upon this sum, 5 per cent</add> for example (£500)<lb/>
<del><gap/></del> you shall have at any rate but <del>if</del> <add>should</add> the expenditure<lb/>
exceed that sum you shall have no more:





Revision as of 12:17, 14 March 2014

Click Here To Edit

6
2. It would
put the

against peculation

Neither could a contract the mode of contract the contract made be depended
upon as shutting the door absolutely against
peculation. It In any building undertaking it is
not very common rather rare I believe than otherwise
for the first original contract to be adhered to without any
variation: as the building advances, occasions for
making additions or alterations present themselves:
thus if for the purpose of as far as these alterations extend the
proprietor, if no fresh contract is made, is then at the
mercy of the builder: and in the making of such
fresh contract, the builder will be apt to take his advantage
in proportion to the degree in which he supposes the proprietor
to have the alteration at heart. A building of so new
a kind must seems more particularly expand <add>apt to able to
afford occasion for such changes.</add>

Your objection against allowing an per cent
unlimited per centage to the architect on the amount
of the expenditure I feel in its full force: it is giving
a premium on profusion. Would not the objection To take away
be removed by making the architect pay a limited the temptation, <add>why not fix the recompense whatever be the expenditure</add>
sum for the whole? Suppose the sum allotted £ ,
000: so much per cent 5 Upon this sum, 5 per cent for example (£500)
you shall have at any rate but if should the expenditure
exceed that sum you shall have no more:




Identifier: | JB/117/045/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 117.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

5-7

Box

117

Main Headings

panopticon

Folio number

045a"a" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 45.

Info in main headings field

Image

002

Titles

Category

correspondence

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f3 / f4

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::[britannia with shield emblem]]]

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

draft of letter 714, vol. 4

ID Number

38662

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in