What happens if, after a prolonged back-and-forth, the client and the architect cannot agree on a design, or if the client realizes during this phase that the architect’s ideas do not match their preferences (and presumably the architect may have a similar realization)?
Originally, the architect was supposed to be hired for design phases 1-8, and the contract is prepared but not yet signed. Now, however, the client no longer wants to continue working with the architect (for the reasons mentioned above), and it is likely that the architect is also frustrated with the client.
What is the best way to resolve this situation? It is clear that the architect has already produced certain work, which, for the client’s stated reasons, is now useless. Ultimately, the greatest disadvantage lies with the client, who has lost time and now has to find a new architect...
Originally, the architect was supposed to be hired for design phases 1-8, and the contract is prepared but not yet signed. Now, however, the client no longer wants to continue working with the architect (for the reasons mentioned above), and it is likely that the architect is also frustrated with the client.
What is the best way to resolve this situation? It is clear that the architect has already produced certain work, which, for the client’s stated reasons, is now useless. Ultimately, the greatest disadvantage lies with the client, who has lost time and now has to find a new architect...
The question is whether this is simply a matter of "taste" or if the architect failed to meet certain requirements that were clearly outlined from the beginning. Based on your description, it seems to be the former, which unfortunately is the client’s risk. The architect is responsible for delivering a flawless and approval-ready design, all within the initially agreed-upon framework conditions. However, they are not obligated to meet the client’s subjective expectations of beauty.
In this case, the services provided must be paid for in full, depending on how far phases 1-3 have progressed.
In this case, the services provided must be paid for in full, depending on how far phases 1-3 have progressed.
As is often the case, the situation is not entirely clear. On one hand, the architect already exceeds the client's stated budget significantly (>10%) during the cost estimate. On the other hand, aspects such as room sizes have not been implemented satisfactorily.
What exactly would be the "certain requirements" that were not fulfilled?
What exactly would be the "certain requirements" that were not fulfilled?
Pyrate schrieb:
The biggest disadvantage of this situation is definitely for the client, Oh! And the fact that the architect’s poor children and cat now have to go hungry because he couldn’t take on other projects due to your designs is apparently not a disadvantage!? 🙂
If you cannot prove a specific breach of contract by the architect, you will likely have to pay for their work. If no agreement seems possible, you will need to seek legal advice.
Escroda schrieb:
Oh! If you cannot prove a specific breach of contract by the architect, you will probably have to pay for their work. If no agreement seems possible, you will need to seek legal assistance.As I wrote above, the architect is also not very motivated anymore but would probably carry on with the project somehow. However, the client thinks it makes no sense to continue causing each other trouble... Additionally, the contract has not even been signed yet. The previous proposals were also to be understood as part of the acquisition process, especially since the contract details (fee category, additional costs, etc.) were only discussed alongside the initial work underway.
Similar topics