bauherr_nrw
2017-11-12 11:35:35
- #1
Hello dear forum members and construction experts. I ask for assistance and advice regarding the following situation:
According to a valid architect contract, the architect takes on all common service phases, but limited only to the construction of a shell. Similar to other HOAI service phases, a flat fee of X,000 euros is contractually agreed for service phase 8 (site supervision of the shell) (There is no agreement about progress payments within this service phase, for example, according to construction progress).
At first, everything goes well, but the architect suddenly and seriously becomes ill exactly 5 weeks after the shell construction begins. The client starts to organize himself with the fortunately very experienced and competent craftsmen, and the shell construction continues. After now 14 weeks of the shell construction phase without any activity from the architect, he states that the recovery will take longer and that he is no longer available to the client, thus terminating the contract (for an important reason?). The shell construction is completed after a total of 16 weeks, the construction progress was consistent. There is no formal acceptance by the architect.
The ill architect now demands more than 60% of his fee for service phase 8, although he only carried out the agreed site supervision for 5 of the 16 shell construction weeks. At this point, the following had been completed of the three-story single-family house: excavation, base slab, basement with ceiling, and the first rows of bricks of the ground floor. He did not even see the important drainage of the base slab before backfilling the earth around the basement.
Now the question to the experts / the community: what is a realistic or legitimate or legal share that the architect is entitled to? Wouldn’t a share of 5/16, about 30%, be more logical rather than the demanded 60%? Does the architect even have claims if he – even if for an important reason – unilaterally terminates the architect contract in the middle of a service phase?
Many thanks for answers and contributions!
According to a valid architect contract, the architect takes on all common service phases, but limited only to the construction of a shell. Similar to other HOAI service phases, a flat fee of X,000 euros is contractually agreed for service phase 8 (site supervision of the shell) (There is no agreement about progress payments within this service phase, for example, according to construction progress).
At first, everything goes well, but the architect suddenly and seriously becomes ill exactly 5 weeks after the shell construction begins. The client starts to organize himself with the fortunately very experienced and competent craftsmen, and the shell construction continues. After now 14 weeks of the shell construction phase without any activity from the architect, he states that the recovery will take longer and that he is no longer available to the client, thus terminating the contract (for an important reason?). The shell construction is completed after a total of 16 weeks, the construction progress was consistent. There is no formal acceptance by the architect.
The ill architect now demands more than 60% of his fee for service phase 8, although he only carried out the agreed site supervision for 5 of the 16 shell construction weeks. At this point, the following had been completed of the three-story single-family house: excavation, base slab, basement with ceiling, and the first rows of bricks of the ground floor. He did not even see the important drainage of the base slab before backfilling the earth around the basement.
Now the question to the experts / the community: what is a realistic or legitimate or legal share that the architect is entitled to? Wouldn’t a share of 5/16, about 30%, be more logical rather than the demanded 60%? Does the architect even have claims if he – even if for an important reason – unilaterally terminates the architect contract in the middle of a service phase?
Many thanks for answers and contributions!