Termination by architect without important reason (60/40 clause)

Hello,

my architect contract is based on the sample contract of the Chamber of Architects BaWü. I am currently filling it out. My architect wishes to be able to terminate the contract at any time, not only for good cause. According to him, it is only fair if two parties who, for whatever reason, do not get along can part ways.

In principle, I wouldn't mind, but I would then want to remove the 60/40 clause so that only services rendered can be billed.

What do you think about the matter?

I don't agree with that. For example, if the architect resigns after service phase 3 or 4, you will find it difficult to find another architect who continues working on the current planning status. Hardly anyone will do that. So you will have to pay twice if he resigns. What reason should he have? For example, a more lucrative contract where more money is offered for less work?

In principle, I can understand the architect's reasoning: the client also has so-called "client tasks" that he must perform in the sense of constructive cooperation and which are described in the contract for work. And he must behave in cooperation with the architect and towards the contracted companies in a way that is conducive to the project processing. If the client permanently fails to do so, the architect's work can be hindered or made impossible. Then the architect could want to terminate it. It then remains for the architect to prove that the reasons for the premature termination of the contract are solely to be found in the client's behavior in order to insist on the 60/40 rule.

This year, I acted this way for the first time because the client did not want to fulfill his client tasks: here the commissioning of specialized experts to prepare a renovation plan (building diagnosis). He also insisted on an approach that deviated significantly from my planning and which I had to describe as potentially harmful to the building from a building physics perspective. Since the client, even after multiple detailed explanations about the meaning and purpose of my approach, did not want to deviate from his own, I had to stop the project processing. Consent to proceed according to his requirements would possibly have been interpreted as negligence on my part in the event of damage and would not have been covered by my professional liability insurance.

If I do not support, do not pay, or otherwise destructively contribute to the project, the architect can terminate for "important reason." All references of the architect have been positive so far, but all verbal commitments such as "to bring several variants up to the design, I am unbothered by that" or "I plan until you are satisfied, that is my claim" somehow contradict his wish to be able to terminate at any time. I would have preferred to include in the contract that in service phase 3 several variants with different requirements are also developed, if necessary. A time machine, please!