The contractor wants to issue an invoice for planning services

If he makes drawings, that's something different:
“He created a draft after our conversation, which we had adjusted again because it was too large.”

No, the general contractor is in the offer phase. It has already been decided by the Federal Court of Justice that he is entitled to nothing, absolutely nothing, exactly €0.

We have had this kind of threads regarding architectural services enough.

That's true - but you have to clearly distinguish between the architect and the construction company (even if an architect works for the general contractor, he is an employee and not a freelance architect).

And where is the difference now? I don't see a big difference, except that the fee regulations provide the architect with a few more guardrails and thus partly protect him.

That is precisely the subtlety, that there are two completely different professions that work and are paid differently. It is basically like comparing a butcher to a doctor. The work of the general contractor and the architect must be viewed just as differently. Sounds strange, but that’s how it is.

And where is the difference now? I don't see a big difference, except that the fee schedule offers architects a bit more guidelines and thus partially protects them.

The creation of designs is an original part of the main service provided by an architect. If I let such a lady or gentleman show up and conduct a basic evaluation, this can (and probably will) already be considered an implicit contract conclusion. That is a world of difference.

Which BGH ruling are you referring to here?

No, the general contractor is in the offer phase. It has already been decided by the Federal Court of Justice that he is entitled to nothing, absolutely nothing, exactly €0.

That is correct - but you have to clearly distinguish between the architect and the construction company (even if a GU employs an architect, he is an employee and not a freelance architect).

That is precisely the subtlety, that these are two completely different professional groups who work and are compensated differently. It is practically like comparing a butcher with a doctor. The work of the GU and the architect must be regarded as just as different. Sounds strange, but that's how it is.

It really does sound strange, because I pay for the service performed and not the qualification. We have dealt with both, so we also had a GU in the house or rather his salesperson. The approach and effort up to the second draft were identical with both.

I really hope that the original poster will post the final result here.

Which BGH ruling are you referring to here?

I found a nice passage from the internet that explains the matter well with the appropriate rulings (too lazy to write it myself ;) )

Quote: "In cases like the one described here (note from me: cases = customer goes to the general contractor and has a plan, possibly with adjustments, created), the business contact between the parties will regularly be limited to the acquisition of a contractor who solicits the prospective builder for a construction contract for the erection of a private house. In this case, the contractor is excluded from fee claims for services rendered in advance, regardless of their nature and scope (see OLG Oldenburg, judgment of 13.07.2000, 8 U 57/00; BGH, decision of 06.12.2001, VII ZR 304/00). Merely providing planning services by the contractor does – unlike what civil engineers often think – not lead to an architect contract, not even tacitly. Instead, the contractor’s services are provided solely to submit an offer, i.e., to prepare the actual construction contract, and do not have an independent character (see BGH, IBE 1999,482 – Lauer; Werner/Pastor, 10th ed., margin no. 618)."

So all the GUs we spoke with were very much aware that their own work concerning the creation of floor plans falls under the keyword customer acquisition.

We have carried out various floor plan changes with all GUs, and almost all topics in my thread are under non-binding offers. Also complete new starts, etc. At some point, however, I was pointed out that we have been dithering for 10 months now and we should slowly come to an end to whether we also sign with him.

The other GU clearly said that he is happy to plan for us, but due to his risk, he does not prepare complete drafts. We could always stop the conversation and go to another GU, and he would be stuck with his costs. However, with the alternative GU, you can also buy the drafts according to HOAI and build 1:1 with another GU – a colleague of mine even did it that way.

So with our GUs, the issue of costs is handled transparently. There are none until at some point the GU says, up to here I work for you at my own risk and no further. But this was always communicated very openly.