Recently, after building permit on stage of DD, architect firm got fired by owner.
Where the design copy right and CAD file belong to?
what is the usual practice to resolve issue?
Owner should buy those rights? or architect doesn't have any right?
Sounds like your client received a building permit for house project, and now feels architectural services are no longer needed because the contractor is now "in charge". Some contracts and deliverables are structured this way for small commissions.
Ownership of design depends upon contract language; sometimes the architect literally "owns" the residential commission designwork as the project is constructed, and sometimes the client "owns" designwork and has contractor independently build house with little to no architect involvement. Few typical "architect-commissioned" houses are constructed to finely detailed construction plans unless it's a very high-end house with a very large architectural fee associated with commission.
If he was fired for breach of contract then the rights and licenses that the architect had are no longer valid. If the termination was because the owner could not pay, then good luck getting the client to pay for the cad files.
in my country, we add the clause in our contract to refer to our institution rules regarding the copyrights issues at each stages of project or being fired... may be u can do the same.
those are two very separate questions you've lumped together, j5.
The answer to the design depends on 3 things; 1. The Contract, 2. Local and State Rules (assuming this is in the U.S.) and 3. Reason for Termination.
If an AIA form was used (the B101-2007 takes over for the venerable B141-1997) and the termination was by the client for a reason other than the architect's failure to perform his or her duties, the the client better play nice with the architect because the design and copyright continues to rest with the architect unless that specific language was changed. There are differences in the routes that an architect can take, the most common legal action comes in the form of a Mechanic's Lein - although states vary widely on it's application.
Additionally, in most jurisdictions where an architect is required to sign or affirm a Certificate of Occupancy it either needs to be the Architect who stamped the drawings or one approved by the Architect of Record. Again, if this was an idea hatched in the client's brain to save money, sitting on what amounts to a large uninhabitable structure because you can't get a C of O turns out not to be such a great deal after all.
I should also point out that lenders who paid for a Construction Loan often want to make sure that the house they are paying for is the same one they were shown drawings of and often have language in the lending documents regarding the observation of the site by the Architect of record and that the building as built is the same as what they saw in the drawings they approved - given the propensity for breaking a contract for a perceived fast buck the bank might just anticipate they might have to complete and sell the building and take an unusually keen interest that the building be completed as designed. Often times lenders also require that the all, or at least the Final Pay Application by the GC be signed by the architect of record or someone authorized by him/her to do so. If a disreputable GC put this idea in the ear of the client, that GC isn't probably going to be around for the final pay app.
Lastly, there is a danger in firing an Architect for incompitence or "failure to perform his/her duties" in that, especially fresh from the permit status, there may be the requirement to re-review a permit set, up to and including a full resubmittal. It's rare, but not unheard of.
Now, the CAD documents are an entirely different animal in that they are not (under almost all circumstances) legal documents and should not be built from. language in the AIA B101 and old B141 differ and this language is one of the most often changed or modified section in either of these forms. Many times there is also an Indemnity Agreement that is attached to the contract or signed separately that states both the uses that electronic documentation is permitted to be used for and if it must be returned at the end of the contract.
But basically, terminating an architectural contract (especially by an unknowledgeable client) rarely, if ever, saves the client money and usually winds up costing him more.
Good luck if it's on the up & up, otherwise they get what they deserve.
Thanks for sharing all your experience. On contract, we mentioned the contract is based on AIA B141 and modification is etc...etc..etc...
Precisely speaking, the permit we received was from city planning board in New Jersey. The design and submission was successfully accepted in exceptionally short period and everyone happy.
However, owner notified us to stop working later. The reason was majorly for their own. not architect's fault. Eventually they thought they could save money after hiring new cheap architect. Well, we were under paid anyway also. --about 1.4% of construction cost was total fee to CD.
Having no experience and ignorance of any rule of contract, the owner will ask design right and CAD file from us.
call a lawyer experienced in construction law now. Read your contract thoroughly (you need to have familiarity with contracts asap in your career.) and read the obligations of the architect of record in the state of the project and permit, occupancy and similar legal codes in the projects municipality.
Also, in signing a contract and living up to your obligations you had an expectation that the contract would be fulfilled and that can be an actionable cause (I.e. they can be taken to court for backing out of the contract, even in some jurisdictions if that is attempted to be negated in the contract.)
So talk to a lawyer after being well versed in your contract and local regulations and obligations. Don't threaten to sue right off the bat, but let them know you've retained council and are reviewing your options. take the advice of your lawyer (not me) but don't be afraid to attempt to get as much fee as you can. They are not a good client and would never get you any more work and only recommend you to other slimeball clients.
And, cheaper than 1.4%?!?! really?
Nov 10, 09 1:01 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.
When architect fired from project, where CAD and design copyright goes?
Recently, after building permit on stage of DD, architect firm got fired by owner.
Where the design copy right and CAD file belong to?
what is the usual practice to resolve issue?
Owner should buy those rights? or architect doesn't have any right?
Well building owner... you are out of luck ! Sorry!
that's what I have known. Where, in a written document, can we find it? I referred only AIA document in the contract.
B141.
Sounds like your client received a building permit for house project, and now feels architectural services are no longer needed because the contractor is now "in charge". Some contracts and deliverables are structured this way for small commissions.
Ownership of design depends upon contract language; sometimes the architect literally "owns" the residential commission designwork as the project is constructed, and sometimes the client "owns" designwork and has contractor independently build house with little to no architect involvement. Few typical "architect-commissioned" houses are constructed to finely detailed construction plans unless it's a very high-end house with a very large architectural fee associated with commission.
All depends on your contract language.
well, if they are fired, will they be liable for the project now?
If he was fired for breach of contract then the rights and licenses that the architect had are no longer valid. If the termination was because the owner could not pay, then good luck getting the client to pay for the cad files.
in my country, we add the clause in our contract to refer to our institution rules regarding the copyrights issues at each stages of project or being fired... may be u can do the same.
those are two very separate questions you've lumped together, j5.
The answer to the design depends on 3 things; 1. The Contract, 2. Local and State Rules (assuming this is in the U.S.) and 3. Reason for Termination.
If an AIA form was used (the B101-2007 takes over for the venerable B141-1997) and the termination was by the client for a reason other than the architect's failure to perform his or her duties, the the client better play nice with the architect because the design and copyright continues to rest with the architect unless that specific language was changed. There are differences in the routes that an architect can take, the most common legal action comes in the form of a Mechanic's Lein - although states vary widely on it's application.
Additionally, in most jurisdictions where an architect is required to sign or affirm a Certificate of Occupancy it either needs to be the Architect who stamped the drawings or one approved by the Architect of Record. Again, if this was an idea hatched in the client's brain to save money, sitting on what amounts to a large uninhabitable structure because you can't get a C of O turns out not to be such a great deal after all.
I should also point out that lenders who paid for a Construction Loan often want to make sure that the house they are paying for is the same one they were shown drawings of and often have language in the lending documents regarding the observation of the site by the Architect of record and that the building as built is the same as what they saw in the drawings they approved - given the propensity for breaking a contract for a perceived fast buck the bank might just anticipate they might have to complete and sell the building and take an unusually keen interest that the building be completed as designed. Often times lenders also require that the all, or at least the Final Pay Application by the GC be signed by the architect of record or someone authorized by him/her to do so. If a disreputable GC put this idea in the ear of the client, that GC isn't probably going to be around for the final pay app.
Lastly, there is a danger in firing an Architect for incompitence or "failure to perform his/her duties" in that, especially fresh from the permit status, there may be the requirement to re-review a permit set, up to and including a full resubmittal. It's rare, but not unheard of.
Now, the CAD documents are an entirely different animal in that they are not (under almost all circumstances) legal documents and should not be built from. language in the AIA B101 and old B141 differ and this language is one of the most often changed or modified section in either of these forms. Many times there is also an Indemnity Agreement that is attached to the contract or signed separately that states both the uses that electronic documentation is permitted to be used for and if it must be returned at the end of the contract.
But basically, terminating an architectural contract (especially by an unknowledgeable client) rarely, if ever, saves the client money and usually winds up costing him more.
Good luck if it's on the up & up, otherwise they get what they deserve.
Thanks for sharing all your experience. On contract, we mentioned the contract is based on AIA B141 and modification is etc...etc..etc...
Precisely speaking, the permit we received was from city planning board in New Jersey. The design and submission was successfully accepted in exceptionally short period and everyone happy.
However, owner notified us to stop working later. The reason was majorly for their own. not architect's fault. Eventually they thought they could save money after hiring new cheap architect. Well, we were under paid anyway also. --about 1.4% of construction cost was total fee to CD.
Having no experience and ignorance of any rule of contract, the owner will ask design right and CAD file from us.
That's the story in short.
call a lawyer experienced in construction law now. Read your contract thoroughly (you need to have familiarity with contracts asap in your career.) and read the obligations of the architect of record in the state of the project and permit, occupancy and similar legal codes in the projects municipality.
Also, in signing a contract and living up to your obligations you had an expectation that the contract would be fulfilled and that can be an actionable cause (I.e. they can be taken to court for backing out of the contract, even in some jurisdictions if that is attempted to be negated in the contract.)
So talk to a lawyer after being well versed in your contract and local regulations and obligations. Don't threaten to sue right off the bat, but let them know you've retained council and are reviewing your options. take the advice of your lawyer (not me) but don't be afraid to attempt to get as much fee as you can. They are not a good client and would never get you any more work and only recommend you to other slimeball clients.
And, cheaper than 1.4%?!?! really?
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.