The plaintiff had provided construction and other works to the defendant. The defendant refused to pay the full amount for the works because he claimed they were not carried out correctly. In the conditions of the contract for the supply of the works, a particular clause stipulated that in the case of a dispute arising between the owner and the contractor, the architect’s decision would be final and binding and that further to such decision there could be no recourse to action in a court of law. The contract also stated that the term ‘architect’ in the contract would be taken to mean the architect acting on behalf of and representing the trader. The plaintiff argued that, on the basis of these conditions and because his architect had formally declared that the works were done properly, the defendant’s pleas had to be dismissed.