ᐅ Proportional Architect’s Fee in Case of Termination of the Architect Agreement
Created on: 12 Nov 2017 11:35
B
bauherr_nrwB
bauherr_nrw12 Nov 2017 11:35Hello dear forum members and construction experts. I am seeking help and advice regarding the following situation:
According to a valid architect contract, the architect is responsible for all standard service phases, but limited only to the construction of the shell structure. Similar to other HOAI service phases, a lump sum of X,000 euros was contractually agreed upon for service phase 8 (construction supervision of the shell). (There is no agreement on installment payments within this service phase, for example, based on construction progress.)
At first, things went well, but exactly five weeks after the start of the shell construction, the architect suddenly fell seriously ill. The homeowner began organizing the work themselves with fortunately very experienced and competent craftsmen, and the shell construction continued. After now 14 weeks of shell construction without any activity from the architect, he stated that his recovery would take longer and that he was no longer available to the homeowner, effectively terminating the contract (for good cause?). The shell construction was completed after a total of 16 weeks, with steady progress. There was no formal acceptance by the architect.
The ill architect is now demanding more than 60% of his fee for service phase 8, although he only performed the agreed construction supervision for 5 out of 16 weeks of the shell phase. At this point, the following parts of the three-story single-family house had been completed: excavation, foundation slab, basement level with ceiling, and the first rows of blocks on the ground floor. The important drainage of the foundation slab before backfilling the basement soil was no longer overseen by him.
Now the question to the experts/community: what would be a realistic, legitimate, or legal share of the fee the architect is entitled to? Would not a share of 5/16, approximately 30%, be more reasonable instead of the demanded 60%? Does the architect even have any claims if he—albeit for good cause—unilaterally terminates the architect contract in the middle of a service phase?
Thank you very much for your answers and contributions!
According to a valid architect contract, the architect is responsible for all standard service phases, but limited only to the construction of the shell structure. Similar to other HOAI service phases, a lump sum of X,000 euros was contractually agreed upon for service phase 8 (construction supervision of the shell). (There is no agreement on installment payments within this service phase, for example, based on construction progress.)
At first, things went well, but exactly five weeks after the start of the shell construction, the architect suddenly fell seriously ill. The homeowner began organizing the work themselves with fortunately very experienced and competent craftsmen, and the shell construction continued. After now 14 weeks of shell construction without any activity from the architect, he stated that his recovery would take longer and that he was no longer available to the homeowner, effectively terminating the contract (for good cause?). The shell construction was completed after a total of 16 weeks, with steady progress. There was no formal acceptance by the architect.
The ill architect is now demanding more than 60% of his fee for service phase 8, although he only performed the agreed construction supervision for 5 out of 16 weeks of the shell phase. At this point, the following parts of the three-story single-family house had been completed: excavation, foundation slab, basement level with ceiling, and the first rows of blocks on the ground floor. The important drainage of the foundation slab before backfilling the basement soil was no longer overseen by him.
Now the question to the experts/community: what would be a realistic, legitimate, or legal share of the fee the architect is entitled to? Would not a share of 5/16, approximately 30%, be more reasonable instead of the demanded 60%? Does the architect even have any claims if he—albeit for good cause—unilaterally terminates the architect contract in the middle of a service phase?
Thank you very much for your answers and contributions!
C
CarstenCOS13 Nov 2017 08:45bauherr_nrw schrieb:
...what is a realistic or legitimate, i.e., legal, share that the architect is entitled to...? Does the architect have any claims at all if he – even for an important reason – unilaterally terminates the architect contract in the middle of a service phase?
Hello, I would suggest consulting a neutral professional who can review the case. You are not trying to haggle but to find a reasonable solution. Perhaps you will need additional planning and consulting services. There are platforms specifically for situations like this. One of these is currently launching. Maybe this is something to consider. Good luck and all the best.
Similar topics