My wife and I hired an architect over a year ago. We came to them with what we wanted to do and our budget, but that we were open to suggestions. They came back with drawings for something over three times our budget. We thanked them, told them it was beautiful, which it was, but it was way out of our budget. They wanted to tear down a section of our house and rebuild, but we never asked for nor wanted it. We had another good talk and new understanding, but they came back with new drawings that would tear down that same section. Again we went back told them thanks but no thanks and we were very clear over email and an in person meetings this is not what we want. They came back with drawings that we and our builder approved. We told them thank you and to move forward.
Our builder got back to us a few weeks later because he noticed that these new plans had the footprint of our house 1 1/2 feet wider which was not necessary and would require a new roofline and cost around 50% of our total budget. We of course missed this addition when we approved the plans. We reached out to our architects about the additional 1 1/2 foot extension, they told us we approved the plans and now we owe them more money or they’re not continuing work, and that any additional work will cost more money as well. They have stopped working, and are refusing to deliver any plans until we pay them more. Can anyone please help?
If you approved the plans without checking them, it’s your fault. Pay up or find someone else.
On the other hand, you’d never think for a second about paying more to your doctor or lawyer for additional services, regardless of the result. For example if a med didn’t work properly, you’d go back to the doctor and pay for the visit. Same with the architect.
Not reading the contract is no excuse because signing an agreement, by the court of law in every jurisdiction in the United States and many around the world, you had agreed to the terms of the contract which INFERS that you read it. If you signed the contract, you already claimed you read and understood the terms and thus agreed to the terms. If you aren't willing to read the contracts you are signing then don't sign it or make any kind of agreement in the first place. On sign or enter in agreement after you read and understood the terms and conditions of the agreement. If you don't understand it, consult your legal counsel (hint: attorney) BEFORE you sign. Every architects, engineer, designer, contractor, etc. expects that of you or any client. Clients have responsibilities including due diligence. As the project client, it is your responsibility so do your job as project client. It is not a one-way road because they are not employees.
*NOTE: Assuming this project is inside the the United States*
Having said that, did you check if the person you contracted is in fact an architect by checking if they are licensed? Since this is a house, they may be a building designer / home designer / residential designer. While their role is essentially the same as an architect, they are not licensed for using that title and in most states, they do not need to be licensed as an architect to do design houses including designing remodels of houses. If the person is not an architect and used the title architect or used the title "architectural designer" and contractually billed the services as "architectural" services or "architectural design" services in the contract, then they are violating some laws.
If they did not claim themselves as an architect and used another title and you simply are referring to them as the "architect" then they are not violating the architect title/practice act unless in the state you are located does not exempt houses from requiring an architect to prepare the plans/drawings/specifications. You may be able to proceed with a lawsuit for breach of contract but you should consult an attorney, though before suing to make sure you have a case.
There is not really enough information here to give reasonable advice, nor should you rely on a message board to resolve this particular issue. I assume there was a contract for this project, although given the role the contractor seems to have in decision making, it is not clear what kind of contract this is. If the architect is licensed you should approach the local architecture regulator for advice. They can give you advice on how to best resolve the situation.
Billiam, I think I should add, licensing boards can not give legal advice per se for a particular case beyond the basic issue of consulting a attorney / lawyer. This is really a contract dispute case primarily. This is a legal matter to consult an attorney (lawyer). This is not something we can advise you on regarding your next "legal" steps. Since we are on this topic, we can suggest you to review the contract terms and conditions to be sure you did not overlook anything which it seems you did.... and that is not an excuse. However, sometimes, some legal terms are not enforceable. This is where you need a lawyer to look at the contract. The lawyer should be familiar with contract laws including that of architectural, engineering, construction, and related laws. We can not advise you on that. We are not lawyers. We may have some insight from out professional background but your dispute is something that we can not provide you with specific legal advice to address a "legal issue".
are you trying to fit 12' in a 10' box? i ask because several times the professional you hired gave you a solution that added onto your house
are you referring to schematic design docs or construction docs as presented thus far?
in the last iteration, did the 1.5' addition NEVER get discussed? The fact that the building needed adding on to is a huge cost threshold in any remodel. I find it difficult to understand how that isn't a primary discussion point in the presentation of any proposed design solution.
the builder "approved" the docs along with the owner: does this mean the builder thought the design finally fit the budget appropriately? If so, why are they suggesting to chop the design up? & surely the builder could see the added footprint in the documents? i'd expect an explicit existing/demo plan & a construction plan; and between the two you'd see the addition & it should have attendant new structural details to indicate new structure: footings or cantilevered framing or something.
with the unstated expectations already in the process to date, i'm guessing the architects have gotten to a point of frustration...can't tell if justified or not with the limited info in the op
with the previous iterations of missed communications, why continue with this designer at all? cut bait?
18" is a lot. I wonder who was contracted to get as-builts and/or what was given to the architect to start. I'm assuming there is no "addition" or drawings describing it as such and now some rooms are smaller than the owner was hoping. The owner is not presenting the actual problem and is instead describing the issue as a cost bust. "To get what I actually want and approved, my GC said he'd have to use up 50% of my money just to build an extra 18 inches"... whether or not the architect comes back to the table to help and whether or not they do so at their own cost or as an add service, those 18" aren't going to magically appear. Time to figure out where you can squeeze down without making rooms nonfunctional.
I agree with On the Fence, as to check if the party is licensed as an architect or not. It doesn't necessarily mean that the project requires an architect. In any case, it's unclear. I also know many clients often call the building designer, 'architect' because its basically the same role and function when it comes to this kind of project and 'architect' is easier to say (3 syllables instead of 5 syllables).
Very limited one sided info here. Clients often want things that aren’t possible. One frequent request is to fit more into a room than is feasible and or code compliant. I suspect the architect walked after multiple iterations and attempts to explain the constraints to the client who would not listen. Next step in this tired story is the client will get shafted by the contractor, probably mid construction when the client has no leverage. Somehow it will still be the architect’s fault in the client’s mind.
Which if I was the designer (which I am not and do not have any association with the OP), found that the request by the client is not feasible because it doesn't comply with law and that the cost of things are higher because of the pandemic than it was beforehand, I would say it like it is. I am not sure the 'architect' is an 'architect'. There's that to consider. Sometimes clients can't do what they want in their budget..... champaign taste, beer budget. In which case, they shouldn't even be put down this road when its unrealistic for the work desired to be done. In that case, say 'no' to the prospective client in the first place. I have seen some prospective clients asking for a grand project but have no where near the budget to even do at all.... I don't even respond to those inquiries. It's just a waste of time to do them.
Something missing here. I don't know how people are giving advice on this. The footprint is 18" too big and that increased your construction budget by 50% because the roof changed?? WTF
WTF is right but not for what you are thinking but why are we talking about this thread after 6 months have passed since.
Apr 25, 22 6:48 pm ·
·
proto
The difference in a remodel between not adding space & adding space is huge. Foundations, exterior walls systems, roof framing, gutters, insulation, windows, roofing... None of that is needed if the project volume remains as it was. Just paying the subs to show up costs money, even if the addition is tiny. And considering the building climate, it may cost more to convince busy subs to show up to make it worth their time...[all speculative since we haven't heard from OP, but all real issues with additions vs interior remodels]
Apr 26, 22 1:57 pm ·
·
Cxtha8kL
That's what the builder told the OP. That's how people can give advice.
If I read between the lines and the finger pointing the owner hired someone who isn't capable or experienced enough to complete project in an acceptable manner ( without getting too far down the rabbit hole ... I am assuming the initial design brief / scope of work is appropriate and reasonable ) The flawed design strategies which have become huge issues and made the relationship sour are really not going to get better. It's time to move on with someone who is more experienced and can execute your development objectives in a realistic manner. But first you need to find a way to pay the current architect the fees owed for credible work completed. If they want fees for additional work or work that was never requested I would say no and tell them they can "pound sand". The relationship has soured and everyone needs to move on.
Do not pay them a nickel more. Demand a full refund of all their fees. Report them to the State licensing board. Contact an attorney. Ask your builder for a reference to an architect or designer they've worked with. Be reasonable with everyone except the architect.
"You approved the plans" is crap. Why? Because you hired an *expert* to draw the plans and they didn't get it right. They ignored you at least twice. That's why you hire an architect in the first place. Be clear, this is not an error or mistake on their part. They deliberately produced drawings that weren't what you asked for or wanted, and sneaked stuff past you just to be jerks. Now they're trying to extort you for more money; they could do this until you have no money left. As a client, you're not expected to be able to read the drawings in detail. Even your builder took "a few weeks" to discover the problem. And yes. it's plausible that a large part of the roof would have to be rebuilt And no, they have performed no "credible work" at this point. They are out to screw you; that's obvious.
And if you go to court, insist on a jury trial. Threaten the architect that you'll voir dire them about the collapse of the Twin Towers. Their attorney will advise them to settle. This is very difficult because architects have power over clients, and other architects support their peers.
Sue them for emotional distress, too. Construction projects are *known* to be stressful on clients, and these architects are just making it worse by delaying the project by refusing to produce the drawings you've asked for. Throw the book at them, as hard as you can.
Don't waste your time WG on this drivel. Something tells me this wanker is a disgruntled Arch with a long history of fruitless lawsuit and who's claim to fame is a cat-litter box bookcase published in some garden/home magazine. ;-)
I actually thought it was a different thread. After responding I checked the OP and decided to withdraw my comment. But now that you’ve painted quite an image I kinda want to poke the nest.
Haha, your link went to an article on designing for "fur babies," which has become more common on my projects in recent years. I'm guessing you meant to point to the article on lighting? Very interesting stuff. You might have seen our BS + Beer episodes with lighting expert David Warfel along similar lines. I thought I knew basic lighting design but new technology and research makes me feel like I need to start from scratch.
May 2, 22 2:37 pm ·
·
natematt
Don't mock the architecture for non-humans... might have gotten me published in a book, so I could be biased....
May 2, 22 2:44 pm ·
·
rcz1001
lol
May 2, 22 3:15 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Which subreddit did you get your law degree from, Cxtha8kL?
WG, no. I deliberately linked to gut-babies. The disgruntled Op And f this comment is credited with on a f the designs. (Hint, they are not anonymous)
May 2, 22 3:50 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
^fur-babies.
May 2, 22 4:37 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
Ah. That article is from last year, not last issue, so I was confused. I suppose I could have read the rest of your comment first but what fun would that be.
In regards to the work performed by the architect or designer, it might not been what was wanted. Architects and designers can not just merely make additions to a home (or any building for that matter) without possibly having some impact on reworking or redoing some structural elements of the existing structure. Some tearing down may be required in order to comply with building codes. The building code is absolutely required to be complied with. While the building official has some latitude in interpreting the building code requirements, the building official isn't absolute "God" either. Interpretations can vary. In Oregon, aside from your local building official, there is the chief building official of the building code division of the state. Therefore, when it comes to interpretation, the chief B.O. of the state may interpret the applicable code in a manner that is different than the local B.O. and can result in what is effectively an override where the B.O. may change interpretation accordingly.
Making additions can result in kinds of issues. OP, you mentioned that it's about 1.5 ft (1'-6" or so) too wide. Is it an error in field measurements/documentation? Possibly. An error in documentation where the fellow had the measurement to the end of roof eave on one or both sides (depending on roof overhang). This can be an error that resulted in being off and not right. Noticing the error, and presenting it to the architect/designer should have resulted in the architect/designer rechecking the measurements made and documented and if necessary, make the corrections in the drawings. If I made an error in measurements, I would have went back to site, checked it and verify the case and if it's error on the drawing, I go back and correct it. It's easy to make an error in measurements in field documenting. Even mistakes in the drawings can be corrected with minimal expense. I wouldn't charge more to make a correction to comply with what was and is agreed upon and documented in meetings with the client for what is needed.
However, individual errors don't mean the entire refund of fees. Work that had been done that complies with what was agreed to is reasonable justification for the architect/designer to not issue full entire refunds. Partial refunds, yes.
Think about it. If a person was hired to mow the lawn and completed half of it and it met the requirements that were agreed to, but you stopped or terminated the agreement when they were about 60% done because what was done at that point did not then, they can refund say... 10% of the amount. If they damaged something, they may compensate for that in addition to. Even clients have responsibilities. It's not just a one-sided show. If you failed to clearly communicate your thoughts, then you also have some fault.
You might think, if they messed up that you should get every penny but that isn't always the case because the architect/designer still did deliver on some or many elements of the contract. An architect/designer can not guarantee the price will meet your price budget. They should strive to, if your budget is realistic but they can't guarantee what it will cost for some third-party will charge for whom they do not possess privity of contract with.
Unfortunately, you won't always get 100% of the refund and that is often the case and courts have upheld that the architect or designer may still retain some of what they got paid. It is frequently not an all or nothing. Civil courts are messy and often will result in a partial refund but the amount or percentage refunded is dependent on all the facts presented in the court case.
May 2, 22 3:49 pm ·
·
rcz1001
If I was the architect or designer, and the fee was small, I may entertain refunding the entire fee amount and that would be so I can move on to other clients and have this sour client relationship be behind me but if the fee is significant, it would most likely be a partial refund.
May 2, 22 4:01 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Our Architect wants more money. What do we do?
My wife and I hired an architect over a year ago. We came to them with what we wanted to do and our budget, but that we were open to suggestions. They came back with drawings for something over three times our budget. We thanked them, told them it was beautiful, which it was, but it was way out of our budget. They wanted to tear down a section of our house and rebuild, but we never asked for nor wanted it. We had another good talk and new understanding, but they came back with new drawings that would tear down that same section. Again we went back told them thanks but no thanks and we were very clear over email and an in person meetings this is not what we want. They came back with drawings that we and our builder approved. We told them thank you and to move forward.
Our builder got back to us a few weeks later because he noticed that these new plans had the footprint of our house 1 1/2 feet wider which was not necessary and would require a new roofline and cost around 50% of our total budget. We of course missed this addition when we approved the plans. We reached out to our architects about the additional 1 1/2 foot extension, they told us we approved the plans and now we owe them more money or they’re not continuing work, and that any additional work will cost more money as well. They have stopped working, and are refusing to deliver any plans until we pay them more. Can anyone please help?
Fire them, report them, sue them, and out them here.
They won't fix their own mistakes?
Looks like you hired some unqualified wankers. Certainly the GC can fix the issue on site without the original architect.
On the other hand, you’d never think for a second about paying more to your doctor or lawyer for additional services, regardless of the result. For example if a med didn’t work properly, you’d go back to the doctor and pay for the visit. Same with the architect.
Tell GC to build minus 1 1/2' and get rid of the architect.
Post a bad review online...
If the drawings were misleading, that's on them. If you missed it, I think it's on you. Without a lawyer I don't think you can know anything further.
Sounds like somebody didn't read the contract. Maybe now would be a good time.
To the OP:
Not reading the contract is no excuse because signing an agreement, by the court of law in every jurisdiction in the United States and many around the world, you had agreed to the terms of the contract which INFERS that you read it. If you signed the contract, you already claimed you read and understood the terms and thus agreed to the terms. If you aren't willing to read the contracts you are signing then don't sign it or make any kind of agreement in the first place. On sign or enter in agreement after you read and understood the terms and conditions of the agreement. If you don't understand it, consult your legal counsel (hint: attorney) BEFORE you sign. Every architects, engineer, designer, contractor, etc. expects that of you or any client. Clients have responsibilities including due diligence. As the project client, it is your responsibility so do your job as project client. It is not a one-way road because they are not employees.
*NOTE: Assuming this project is inside the the United States*
Having said that, did you check if the person you contracted is in fact an architect by checking if they are licensed? Since this is a house, they may be a building designer / home designer / residential designer. While their role is essentially the same as an architect, they are not licensed for using that title and in most states, they do not need to be licensed as an architect to do design houses including designing remodels of houses. If the person is not an architect and used the title architect or used the title "architectural designer" and contractually billed the services as "architectural" services or "architectural design" services in the contract, then they are violating some laws.
If they did not claim themselves as an architect and used another title and you simply are referring to them as the "architect" then they are not violating the architect title/practice act unless in the state you are located does not exempt houses from requiring an architect to prepare the plans/drawings/specifications. You may be able to proceed with a lawsuit for breach of contract but you should consult an attorney, though before suing to make sure you have a case.
There is not really enough information here to give reasonable advice, nor should you rely on a message board to resolve this particular issue. I assume there was a contract for this project, although given the role the contractor seems to have in decision making, it is not clear what kind of contract this is. If the architect is licensed you should approach the local architecture regulator for advice. They can give you advice on how to best resolve the situation.
I agree with the point above.
Billiam, I think I should add, licensing boards can not give legal advice per se for a particular case beyond the basic issue of consulting a attorney / lawyer. This is really a contract dispute case primarily. This is a legal matter to consult an attorney (lawyer). This is not something we can advise you on regarding your next "legal" steps. Since we are on this topic, we can suggest you to review the contract terms and conditions to be sure you did not overlook anything which it seems you did.... and that is not an excuse. However, sometimes, some legal terms are not enforceable. This is where you need a lawyer to look at the contract. The lawyer should be familiar with contract laws including that of architectural, engineering, construction, and related laws. We can not advise you on that. We are not lawyers. We may have some insight from out professional background but your dispute is something that we can not provide you with specific legal advice to address a "legal issue".
so many questions...
are you trying to fit 12' in a 10' box? i ask because several times the professional you hired gave you a solution that added onto your house
are you referring to schematic design docs or construction docs as presented thus far?
in the last iteration, did the 1.5' addition NEVER get discussed? The fact that the building needed adding on to is a huge cost threshold in any remodel. I find it difficult to understand how that isn't a primary discussion point in the presentation of any proposed design solution.
the builder "approved" the docs along with the owner: does this mean the builder thought the design finally fit the budget appropriately? If so, why are they suggesting to chop the design up? & surely the builder could see the added footprint in the documents? i'd expect an explicit existing/demo plan & a construction plan; and between the two you'd see the addition & it should have attendant new structural details to indicate new structure: footings or cantilevered framing or something.
with the unstated expectations already in the process to date, i'm guessing the architects have gotten to a point of frustration...can't tell if justified or not with the limited info in the op
with the previous iterations of missed communications, why continue with this designer at all? cut bait?
18" is a lot. I wonder who was contracted to get as-builts and/or what was given to the architect to start. I'm assuming there is no "addition" or drawings describing it as such and now some rooms are smaller than the owner was hoping. The owner is not presenting the actual problem and is instead describing the issue as a cost bust. "To get what I actually want and approved, my GC said he'd have to use up 50% of my money just to build an extra 18 inches"... whether or not the architect comes back to the table to help and whether or not they do so at their own cost or as an add service, those 18" aren't going to magically appear. Time to figure out where you can squeeze down without making rooms nonfunctional.
Are you sure you didn't hire a building designer and not an architect?
I've seen architects do shit like this a lot more than building designers. Just sayin'.
I agree with On the Fence, as to check if the party is licensed as an architect or not. It doesn't necessarily mean that the project requires an architect. In any case, it's unclear. I also know many clients often call the building designer, 'architect' because its basically the same role and function when it comes to this kind of project and 'architect' is easier to say (3 syllables instead of 5 syllables).
Which if I was the designer (which I am not and do not have any association with the OP), found that the request by the client is not feasible because it doesn't comply with law and that the cost of things are higher because of the pandemic than it was beforehand, I would say it like it is. I am not sure the 'architect' is an 'architect'. There's that to consider. Sometimes clients can't do what they want in their budget..... champaign taste, beer budget. In which case, they shouldn't even be put down this road when its unrealistic for the work desired to be done. In that case, say 'no' to the prospective client in the first place. I have seen some prospective clients asking for a grand project but have no where near the budget to even do at all.... I don't even respond to those inquiries. It's just a waste of time to do them.
time costs money. How can the architect pay their staff to spend time reworking the 18" if they aren't being compensated? This makes no sense.
Exactly. The architect will have to spend his own time and money to fix it.
Something missing here. I don't know how people are giving advice on this. The footprint is 18" too big and that increased your construction budget by 50% because the roof changed?? WTF
WTF is right but not for what you are thinking but why are we talking about this thread after 6 months have passed since.
The difference in a remodel between not adding space & adding space is huge. Foundations, exterior walls systems, roof framing, gutters, insulation, windows, roofing... None of that is needed if the project volume remains as it was. Just paying the subs to show up costs money, even if the addition is tiny. And considering the building climate, it may cost more to convince busy subs to show up to make it worth their time...[all speculative since we haven't heard from OP, but all real issues with additions vs interior remodels]
That's what the builder told the OP. That's how people can give advice.
If I read between the lines and the finger pointing the owner hired someone who isn't capable or experienced enough to complete project in an acceptable manner ( without getting too far down the rabbit hole ... I am assuming the initial design brief / scope of work is appropriate and reasonable ) The flawed design strategies which have become huge issues and made the relationship sour are really not going to get better. It's time to move on with someone who is more experienced and can execute your development objectives in a realistic manner. But first you need to find a way to pay the current architect the fees owed for credible work completed. If they want fees for additional work or work that was never requested I would say no and tell them they can "pound sand". The relationship has soured and everyone needs to move on.
Do not pay them a nickel more. Demand a full refund of all their fees. Report them to the State licensing board. Contact an attorney. Ask your builder for a reference to an architect or designer they've worked with. Be reasonable with everyone except the architect.
"You approved the plans" is crap. Why? Because you hired an *expert* to draw the plans and they didn't get it right. They ignored you at least twice. That's why you hire an architect in the first place. Be clear, this is not an error or mistake on their part. They deliberately produced drawings that weren't what you asked for or wanted, and sneaked stuff past you just to be jerks. Now they're trying to extort you for more money; they could do this until you have no money left. As a client, you're not expected to be able to read the drawings in detail. Even your builder took "a few weeks" to discover the problem. And yes. it's plausible that a large part of the roof would have to be rebuilt And no, they have performed no "credible work" at this point. They are out to screw you; that's obvious.
And if you go to court, insist on a jury trial. Threaten the architect that you'll voir dire them about the collapse of the Twin Towers. Their attorney will advise them to settle. This is very difficult because architects have power over clients, and other architects support their peers.
Sue them for emotional distress, too. Construction projects are *known* to be stressful on clients, and these architects are just making it worse by delaying the project by refusing to produce the drawings you've asked for. Throw the book at them, as hard as you can.
.
Don't waste your time WG on this drivel. Something tells me this wanker is a disgruntled Arch with a long history of fruitless lawsuit and who's claim to fame is a cat-litter box bookcase published in some garden/home magazine. ;-)
I actually thought it was a different thread. After responding I checked the OP and decided to withdraw my comment. But now that you’ve painted quite an image I kinda want to poke the nest.
WG, check out the latest edition of WSMAG!
Haha, your link went to an article on designing for "fur babies," which has become more common on my projects in recent years. I'm guessing you meant to point to the article on lighting? Very interesting stuff. You might have seen our BS + Beer episodes with lighting expert David Warfel along similar lines. I thought I knew basic lighting design but new technology and research makes me feel like I need to start from scratch.
Don't mock the architecture for non-humans... might have gotten me published in a book, so I could be biased....
lol
Which subreddit did you get your law degree from, Cxtha8kL?
WG, no. I deliberately linked to gut-babies. The disgruntled Op And f this comment is credited with on a f the designs. (Hint, they are not anonymous)
^fur-babies.
Ah. That article is from last year, not last issue, so I was confused. I suppose I could have read the rest of your comment first but what fun would that be.
In regards to the work performed by the architect or designer, it might not been what was wanted. Architects and designers can not just merely make additions to a home (or any building for that matter) without possibly having some impact on reworking or redoing some structural elements of the existing structure. Some tearing down may be required in order to comply with building codes. The building code is absolutely required to be complied with. While the building official has some latitude in interpreting the building code requirements, the building official isn't absolute "God" either. Interpretations can vary. In Oregon, aside from your local building official, there is the chief building official of the building code division of the state. Therefore, when it comes to interpretation, the chief B.O. of the state may interpret the applicable code in a manner that is different than the local B.O. and can result in what is effectively an override where the B.O. may change interpretation accordingly.
Making additions can result in kinds of issues. OP, you mentioned that it's about 1.5 ft (1'-6" or so) too wide. Is it an error in field measurements/documentation? Possibly. An error in documentation where the fellow had the measurement to the end of roof eave on one or both sides (depending on roof overhang). This can be an error that resulted in being off and not right. Noticing the error, and presenting it to the architect/designer should have resulted in the architect/designer rechecking the measurements made and documented and if necessary, make the corrections in the drawings. If I made an error in measurements, I would have went back to site, checked it and verify the case and if it's error on the drawing, I go back and correct it. It's easy to make an error in measurements in field documenting. Even mistakes in the drawings can be corrected with minimal expense. I wouldn't charge more to make a correction to comply with what was and is agreed upon and documented in meetings with the client for what is needed.
However, individual errors don't mean the entire refund of fees. Work that had been done that complies with what was agreed to is reasonable justification for the architect/designer to not issue full entire refunds. Partial refunds, yes.
Think about it. If a person was hired to mow the lawn and completed half of it and it met the requirements that were agreed to, but you stopped or terminated the agreement when they were about 60% done because what was done at that point did not then, they can refund say... 10% of the amount. If they damaged something, they may compensate for that in addition to. Even clients have responsibilities. It's not just a one-sided show. If you failed to clearly communicate your thoughts, then you also have some fault.
You might think, if they messed up that you should get every penny but that isn't always the case because the architect/designer still did deliver on some or many elements of the contract. An architect/designer can not guarantee the price will meet your price budget. They should strive to, if your budget is realistic but they can't guarantee what it will cost for some third-party will charge for whom they do not possess privity of contract with.
Unfortunately, you won't always get 100% of the refund and that is often the case and courts have upheld that the architect or designer may still retain some of what they got paid. It is frequently not an all or nothing. Civil courts are messy and often will result in a partial refund but the amount or percentage refunded is dependent on all the facts presented in the court case.
If I was the architect or designer, and the fee was small, I may entertain refunding the entire fee amount and that would be so I can move on to other clients and have this sour client relationship be behind me but if the fee is significant, it would most likely be a partial refund.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.