Architectural Disputes — the Legal Nature of the Relationship
Disputes with an architect usually take two forms: the design is not of adequate quality, or the work built according to the design is not fit. Under Georgian law such relationships sit between two frames: where the architect delivers a result as work, the relationship runs under the rules of the works contract; where the architect only performs acts in the name and at the expense of the client, it falls under the mandate.
Article 629 defines the works contract: the contractor undertakes to perform the work provided for in the contract, and the customer must pay the agreed remuneration; where the works include the manufacture of a product from the contractor’s own materials, the contractor transfers ownership of the product to the customer. The mandate, under Article 709, means that the mandatary must perform the acts entrusted to it by the mandator in the latter’s name and at its expense. The right litigation strategy begins by distinguishing these frames.
The Quality Standard — What Makes a Defect-Free Work
Article 641 sets the standard: a product is free of defects where it corresponds to the agreed conditions; where no conditions are agreed, the product is deemed free of defects if it is fit for the use provided for in the contract or for ordinary use. Manufacturing a product different from what was ordered, or of a lesser quantity, is equated with a defect.
In architectural disputes this standard unfolds into two questions: does the design correspond to the brief and the agreed parameters, and — where the brief was not detailed — is the resulting object fit for its ordinary use. This is why the detail of the technical brief is decisive: the more precise the brief, the smaller the space for interpretation.
Additional Performance — Cure or Remake
On discovering a defect the customer may demand additional performance: under Article 642, the contractor may, at its choice, either remedy the defect or manufacture a new product. For the purpose of additional performance the contractor must bear the necessary costs, including transport, work and materials, but may refuse where additional performance requires disproportionate expenditure. Where it manufactures a new product, it may demand the return of the defective one.
Where the contractor neither refuses nor performs within the period set for additional performance, Article 643 allows the customer to remedy the defect itself and claim reimbursement of the expenses incurred. In architectural practice this means correcting the design through another specialist is possible, with the cost borne by the original performer — provided the conditions are met.
The Duty to Warn — the Architect’s Role Is Not Passive
Article 647 is one of the most frequently applied norms in design disputes: the contractor must timely warn the customer that the material received from the customer is of poor quality and unsuitable; that following the customer’s instructions will render the work unstable or unsuitable; or that other circumstances exist which threaten the strength or fitness of the work.
Where the customer, despite timely warning, does not replace the unsuitable material, does not change the instructions or does not eliminate the threatening circumstance within the appropriate period, the contractor may refuse the contract and claim compensation for the damage caused. The practical meaning for the architect is clear: a written warning about the client’s errors is the instrument that shifts responsibility; for the client, it is the basis of a counterclaim where the professional left an obvious risk uncovered.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below are frequent questions on architectural disputes.
Which result is defective?
A product of a different kind or of lesser quantity than ordered is deemed a physical defect.
Who chooses the cure?
In supplementary performance — the contractor: it eliminates the defect or manufactures a new product, bearing the costs of transport, work and materials.
May supplementary performance be refused?
Yes, where it requires disproportionate expenses.
How We Help on Legal.ge
Winning an architectural dispute depends on details: the content of the brief, stage-by-stage acceptance of the design, documentation of warnings, and proof of defects by expertise. We analyse the contract and the course of the relationship, assess the claims within the works and mandate frames, prepare the demand and represent clients in court. Within the works frame one further detail is valuable: the preparation of a cost estimate connected with the work is not reimbursed unless otherwise agreed — separate tariffing of pre-design planning work therefore requires the parties’ express agreement, failing which its recovery becomes doubtful. Equally, remember that manufacturing a product different from the one ordered is equated with a defect: a design that does not follow the agreed parameters counts as defective even if excellent in itself, because the customer’s interest is in receiving the agreed content. Contact us — in architectural disputes an early assessment saves half the cost. Written form and full documentation remain decisive at every stage.