Final answer:
The responsibility for costs incurred from finding and hiring an alternate subcontractor after an architect's rejection depends on the construction contract terms, generally falling on the general contractor. It's important to review the contract to clarify who bears these extra costs to avoid disputes.
Step-by-step explanation:
If an architect rejects a proposed subcontractor, the responsibility for any cost incurred by finding and hiring an alternate subcontractor depends largely on the terms of the contract between the parties involved. Typically, the general contractor is responsible for the selection of subcontractors. If the architect, acting on behalf of the project owner, has the authority to reject a subcontractor as established within the contract documents, the general contractor must then find a suitable replacement.
This could potentially lead to additional costs. Depending on the project's specific contractual agreements, these extra costs might be absorbed by the general contractor or billed to the project owner if the contract allows for such provisions. It's crucial to review the contract to determine which party bears the financial risk associated with replacing a subcontractor.
If the responsibility is not clearly defined within the contract, disputes may arise, and it might be necessary to seek legal advice or resolution through negotiation or arbitration. Construction contracts often include clauses that specify procedures for such circumstances to avoid ambiguity and protect all parties involved.