Trouble with architect's bill for planned construction project

A decent architect would have dismissed that as client acquisition and would have been happy if you came back with it someday... now the lady has disqualified herself...

Oh – I thought that the "that's also advertising for you" customers were a "privilege" of web designers *LOL* I find this "culture" of expecting free appetizers for *ifIsaidthatIwouldprobablybeBanned*

Maybe the architect doesn’t write her invoices herself and the process got rushed through an assistant following a standard procedure.

Abrupt terminations of architect contracts are actually not provided for by the "construction" of the fee schedule; the architect thus has no choice but to charge hourly flat rates somewhat as a comparison offer. Five hours – which would be around six hundred euros for comparison with a certified specialist engineer in civil engineering (an architect is not an unskilled activity!) – are extremely customer-friendly here, and, in the sense of , can definitely be seen as the aforementioned signal "I’m happy if you come back." If the OP also

mocks an hourly rate according to HOAI times five

as a single hour calculated with the factor 5, that, in my opinion, really takes the cake. Even the basic attitude of calling a (albeit apparently underestimated) extensive qualified activity "business initiation" causes me several minutes of head shaking over this level of consumer arrogance.

In this respect, we cannot determine the true facts here as a "High Court" based on the evidence and witness statements

That's what I'm saying and I agree with you:

But that would be speculation now.

So we stick to the facts here.

@

I think the 5 hours are fine. After all, you did receive useful information for it, namely that a conversion under the conditions mentioned below would be possible.[/B]

Abrupt termination of architect contracts is actually not provided for by the "construction" of the fee table, so the architect has no choice but to calculate hourly flat rates somewhat as a comparative offer. Five hours – which would be six hundred euros in comparison at a certified expert in the field (being an architect is not an unskilled job!) – are very customer-friendly, and in the sense of can clearly be seen as the aforementioned signal "I look forward to you coming back." If the OP also

I do not understand in what context you are quoting me. I was only saying that I find it obvious, in a situation of "Wildente hears that the architect does not want to charge" + "weeks later an invoice arrives anyway," to call once and talk to each other.

I do not understand in what context you are quoting me.

Perhaps the architect does not write her invoices herself and the process slipped through an assistant following a standardized procedure.

The architect’s assistant could not have proceeded here according to a "standardized procedure" because, due to the cancellation of the contract for work and services by the original poster, the framework of the "standardized procedure" (aka HOAI) was left. In this special situation, all parties are at a loss: the HOAI contains a huge application gap for this case, into which the Building Code then only steps in on grounds of jurisdiction—but also without having a sufficiently detailed application guideline for determining the amount. How to handle this situation is far beyond the decision-making authority of an assistant. That means she could at best have suggested it, but it would not have been decided without the leading involvement of the boss. In principle, the only way to avoid a legal dispute here is as the architect has done: with a settlement proposal that is so far removed from a "meeting in the middle" in favor of the opposing party that one would literally have to spell the word "namely" with an "h" not to accept it. The original poster can do nothing smarter here than to promptly settle this highly accommodating trivial bill. We are clearly in a range regarding the dispute value (of what the architect could claim) where lawyer’s fees would multiply the costs (where I hope the penny has dropped that the original poster also concluded a contract here without any written form).

The OP can do nothing more clever here than to promptly settle this highly accommodating Peanuts invoice. We are clearly dealing with a dispute value (what the architect could claim) in a range where legal fees would be multiples (where I hope the penny has dropped that the OP had also concluded a contract here without any written form).

... In the end, I agree with you, the OP should simply pay because it will spare his/her nerves. However, your excessively long explanations are wrong. Even if there was an oral contract through the commissioning of the architect, the order (checking feasibility) does not constitute a service according to HOAI – 11ant, you know the service phases yourself... which one should that be? Basic evaluation would not be completed here by far... So let's not put the architect in a generous light – she is simply demanding the maximum of what she hopes to get. Accommodation I see none at all. GD