ᐅ Termination by Architect without Just Cause (60/40 Clause)
Created on: 12 Nov 2015 22:51
A
AloadihoaA
Aloadihoa12 Nov 2015 22:51Hello,
My architect contract is based on the standard agreement from the Architects’ Chamber of Baden-Württemberg. I am currently filling it out. My architect wants to be able to terminate the contract at any time, not only for cause. According to him, it is only fair that both parties, for whatever reason, can part ways.
In principle, I don’t see a reason to object, but I would want to remove the 60/40 clause, so that only services actually provided can be billed.
What are your thoughts on this?
My architect contract is based on the standard agreement from the Architects’ Chamber of Baden-Württemberg. I am currently filling it out. My architect wants to be able to terminate the contract at any time, not only for cause. According to him, it is only fair that both parties, for whatever reason, can part ways.
In principle, I don’t see a reason to object, but I would want to remove the 60/40 clause, so that only services actually provided can be billed.
What are your thoughts on this?
T
toxicmolotof12 Nov 2015 23:50I don’t agree with that. For example, if the architect terminates the contract after design phase 3 or 4, it will be difficult to find another architect willing to continue working based on the current stage of planning. Very few will do that. So you would end up paying twice if they terminate. What reason would they have? For instance, a more profitable project that offers more money for less work?
In principle, I can understand the architect’s argument: The client also has so-called "client responsibilities" that they must fulfill as part of constructive collaboration, which are described in the contract for work. The client must behave in a way that supports the project process when working with the architect and the contracted firms. If the client consistently fails to do so, the architect’s work may be obstructed or made impossible. In such cases, the architect might want to terminate the contract. It then remains the architect’s responsibility to prove that the reasons for the early termination of the contract are solely due to the client’s behavior, in order to enforce the 60/40 rule.
This year, I acted this way for the first time because the client did not fulfill their client responsibilities—in this case, commissioning specialist consultants to prepare a renovation plan (building survey). Furthermore, the client insisted on an approach that differed significantly from my plan and that I had to describe as potentially harmful to the building’s physical condition. Since the client refused to abandon their approach despite multiple detailed explanations about the purpose and rationale of my method, I had to suspend the project work. Agreeing to proceed according to the client’s instructions could potentially have been considered negligence in the event of damage and would not have been covered by my professional liability insurance.
This year, I acted this way for the first time because the client did not fulfill their client responsibilities—in this case, commissioning specialist consultants to prepare a renovation plan (building survey). Furthermore, the client insisted on an approach that differed significantly from my plan and that I had to describe as potentially harmful to the building’s physical condition. Since the client refused to abandon their approach despite multiple detailed explanations about the purpose and rationale of my method, I had to suspend the project work. Agreeing to proceed according to the client’s instructions could potentially have been considered negligence in the event of damage and would not have been covered by my professional liability insurance.
A
Aloadihoa15 Nov 2015 09:24If I don’t support, pay, or otherwise act destructively towards the project, the architect can terminate the contract for “good cause.” All of the architect’s references have been positive so far, but all verbal assurances like “I’m flexible enough to provide multiple design options up to the final draft” or “I plan until you’re satisfied, that’s my standard” somehow contradict his wish to be able to terminate the contract at any time. I would have preferred to include in the contract that several design variants, possibly with different requirements, would be developed during design phase 3 if necessary. A time machine, please!