Your excessively long explanations are, however, wrong. [...] I see no concession whatsoever, contrary to @11ant.
If you still haven’t understood the concession, then my explanations must rather have been "not long enough" :-( :
In the end, I agree with you, the OP should simply pay because it saves their nerves. [...] So let’s not put the architect in a generous light – she simply demands the maximum of what she hopes to get.
You can’t really "agree" with me on that, because I
did not draw this conclusion (
to give in as a perceived martyr). The architect does not demand the "maximum" (and certainly not "what she hopes to get"), but symbolically the remuneration of (in reality certainly more than just these) five working hours in the termination of a contract for work and services, in the fulfillment of which until the end she would have been paid much more royally than by the hour. In court (given the amount in dispute, the first instance here would be a regional court = with mandatory legal representation) this would have become a long story, but I will not let myself be reproached again for the "excessive length" for a more detailed explanation, so you will have to figure that out yourself. I had already hinted at the "constructive problem" of this legal question, so you basically just have to look back.
Even if an oral contract was made through the use of the architect, the commission (to check whether it is feasible) does not constitute a service according to HOAI – 11ant, you know the service phases yourself… which one should that be? The basic evaluation would not have been completed here by far…
An oral contract was made here, and even if the OP did not specify exactly to what extent the activity was agreed upon – I am at least pleased that you correctly recognized that this extent must have at least been service phase 1. That this was not yet completed is inherent in the nature of the termination or premature cancellation – thus she omitted the completion of service phase 1 not maliciously, but at the client’s request. Therefore, her work up to the termination of service phase 1 is to be remunerated, and the alternative billing of the effort by working hours is perfectly appropriate and in doubt, in my opinion, clearly unfavorable to her in a fair middle ground settlement – the latter is part of what I mean by "generous"; furthermore, by waiving a contentious dispute, she saves the OP fees which would be multiple times her claim in each of the two parts (the OP’s lawyer and court as well as the opposing lawyer).