Of  course  any  method  of  inspection  which  substantially  injured
or  weakened  the  work  would  not  under  ordinary  circumstances  be
permissible.  Where  parts  of  the  work  are  concealed  before  the
architect  has  had  an  opportunity  to  inspect  them,  assuming  that
the  architect  was  properly  performing  his  duty  of  inspecting  and
that  such  concealment  when  made  was  a  necessary  part  of  the
contractor's  work,  it  would  seem  that  the  architect  could  have  the
covered  part  removed  so  that  he  may  inspect  the  interior.  If  this
interior  should  prove  to  be  made  of  poorer  material  or  workman-
ship than  that  called  for  by  the  contract,  the  architect  might  order
it  removed  and  replaced  correctly,  and  the  cost  of  the  tearing  down
for  inspection,  the  removal,  and  the  replacing  should  all  bo  paid
for  by  the  contractor.  But  if  the  interior  proved  to  be  according
to  the  contract,  it  would  seem  that  the  owner  should  pay  the  cost
of  the  tearing  down  and  rebuilding,  and  that  allowance  for  any
delay  caused  thereby  should  be  made  to  the  contractor.  But  when
the  architect  delays  or  is  remiss  in  his  inspection  or  in  making
objections  to  the  work  or  material,  and  in  consequence  thereof
parts  of  the  work  or  material  are  concealed  without  any  wrong  in-
tent on  the  part  of  the  contractor,  but  in  the  ordinary  course  of
the  work,  then  it  would  seem  that  the  architect  should  bear  the
expense  of  removing  the  concealing  parts  even  when  the  concealed
parts  are  not  in  accordance  with  the  plans  and  specifications.
