The architect and the client cannot agree on a design

What actually happens if the client and the architect cannot agree on a design by the architect after a prolonged back and forth, or if the client realizes at this stage that the architect's ideas do not suit the client's taste (conversely, this realization surely exists in some form as well)?

Originally, the architect was supposed to be commissioned for service phases 1-8, the contract is available but has not yet been signed. Now, however, the client no longer wants to continue working with the architect (reason see above) and presumably the architect is already annoyed by the client.

How is the best way to come to an agreement here? It is clear that the architect has already worked on certain things that are useless to the client for the reasons given. The biggest disadvantage from this development is, after all, for the client, who has lost time and now has to find a new architect...

The question is, is it just a matter of "taste" or has the architect failed to implement certain requirements that were presented from the outset? According to your description, it is more likely the former, which is then the misfortune of the client. The architect owes a flawless and approvable plan, all in consideration of the initially agreed framework conditions. He does not owe beauty in the eye of the client's expectations.

In this case, the services rendered will have to be paid in full. Depending on how far phases 1-3 have progressed.

As is often the case, the situation is not entirely clear. On the one hand, the architect already exceeds the budget specified by the client significantly (>10%) in the cost estimate. On the other hand, aspects such as room sizes, etc. have not been implemented satisfactorily.

What would otherwise be "certain requirements" that have not been fulfilled?

The biggest disadvantage from this course of events is, after all, the builder,

Oh! And that the poor children and the architect's cat now have to starve because he couldn't accept any other job due to your designs is apparently not a disadvantage!? :)

If you cannot prove a concrete breach of contract by the architect, you will probably have to pay for his work. If no agreement is in sight, you will have to seek legal assistance.

Oh! If you cannot prove a concrete breach of contract by the architect, you will probably have to pay for his work. If no agreement is in sight, you will need to seek legal assistance.

As I wrote above, the architect is no longer very keen either but would probably somehow carry the matter through. However, the client thinks there is no point in continuing to torment each other... In addition, the contract has not yet been signed. The previous proposals are also to be understood as acquisition, especially since the contract details (fee zone, incidental costs, etc.) were only discussed parallel to the initial work.

Whereas I actually wonder how it is: let’s assume the client and the architect keep writhing forever?