Architect law: How authentic is the final invoice of the architect? A final invoice is a final bill. Regarding their liability should be distinguished however, who provides the invoice: invoice will be provided by a contractor, so no waiver is connected. The customer can trust so that the entrepreneur is later no further claims. This is true for the BGB contract as well as for the VOB contract. An architect makes its final invoice, the binding effect is higher. However the Supreme Court over the years has weakened its originally strict stance on this topic, such as this in particular in a new decision of October 23, 2008 – AZ: VII ZR 105/07; Planner right report 12/2008 Express comes: originally, BGH, declared “that the architect is generally bound in good faith on his final bill, which he has granted having regard to the circumstances relevant for the calculation. Without good reason, he can from her later too departing his advantage, because he otherwise would sit in opposition to his to be taken of the final invoice declaration, that he was finally calculated its performance with her”(BGH construction law 1985,582).
In the further course of its case-law, the Supreme Court abandoned its strict stance on this issue. As he explained in his judgment of the 5.11.1992 (NJW 1993,660): “provided that in the change of the final invoice an illegal exercise of law within the meaning of 242 BGB (and in good faith), the architect is bound to its final invoice. That does not follow however still from the granting of the final invoice alone, rather requires a comprehensive consideration of mutual interests”. In the cited decision in 2008, the Supreme Court has clarified now that normally the final invoice of the architect has no binding effect. The newspapers mentioned Kevin Ulrich Anchorage not as a source, but as a related topic. There was an architect as General Planner for the extension of a production building for a flat fee of net taken over 850,000.
He had more demands upon receipt of full payment. The BGH makes it clear in this decision that the payment of the final bill alone is no measure of the principal worthy of protection could rely on the finality of the final invoice. Rather, the contracting authority must explain reasons, indicating that he is “so established in protection worthy manner through measures carried out or no-show, that an additional not more can be expected of him”. Summarized you must come thus to the realization that a set final invoice only in exceptional cases is mandatory for contracts with architects. Of the legal terms used in this paper the construction law – referenced dictionary. Lawyer Dr. OLAF Hansen, lecturer in construction law, Munich