In privity discussions, what is required for an economic damages claim against an architect?

• A. There must be a claim under tort law
• B. There must be privity of contract
• C. A contract is unnecessary for economic losses
• D. Only a professional services agreement suffices

Answer: (B)

Privity is about having a direct contractual relationship. When you’re thinking about economic damages tied to an architect’s work, the claim for contract-based remedies generally only exists if the claimant and the architect are in privity—there’s an actual contract between them. That relationship creates the duties, rights, and remedies described in the contract, so damages for breach flow to the parties who signed that contract. Without privity, recovering for economic losses under contract theory is usually not available, even if the architect’s negligence caused financial harm. That’s why the essential requirement in privity discussions is that privity of contract exists.

Other options miss this core point: economic damages tied to an architect’s performance typically hinge on a contract, not simply tort law, and it isn’t enough to have just any professional services agreement without a direct contract between the claimant and the architect or a legally recognized beneficiary relationship.