According to a new ruling of the OLG Munich (9 U-3217/10) is important for architects for the honorary permission on the provability of a planning agreement. The higher regional court of Munich has again decided that for the recovery of fees an architect of the Treaty must prove it. This principle pervades the jurisdiction of various courts and corresponds to the higher Federal Court of Justice case-law. Also the provision of 632 I BGB changes nothing on the basic premise that the primary conclusion of the contract will only prove by the architect must. The section 632 I BGB says only that the creator of a work, have tacitly agreed a compensation if a production of the work only a fee can be expected. Thus, it is clear, however, that first conclusion of the contract is to prove the. What was the case, an architect (plaintiff) was willing to provide for a project site planning, demolition of the existing buildings and subsequent construction, services. The project was divided into different Stages of construction (demolition, new construction, expansion) and had different parties (owners, planners, investors).

One must add that there was no written assignment and that other parties did not right on top of the cost of the architect, if they were to wear by the land owner or investor. The architect created applications for the granting of a building vorbescheides, which were submitted by the contracting authority (defendant). For other services claimed the architect also contracted to be wober he to prove on a witness pointed, which told him. The architect did his further planning work. When it was decided to let, because no new investor was found, the execution of works architect demanded the pending fee for the paid plans.

In the first instance, the plaintive architect was inferior which is why he has appealed to the Court of appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The reason for this, was that it architect in failed to prove that he actually was hired by the witness of the taking of evidence. Further case called witnesses could not clearly confirm the assignment. The higher regional court could determine any unique contract/commissioning the architect by using the offered evidence. This was especially bitter, because without order and no representation could be accepted by an officers and also no order management. In the conclusion it remains: the conclusion of the contract is to prove by the claimant. This does not succeed usually without sufficient evidence. An architect is well advised, if he accepts the assignment only in writing. The judgment was preceded the proceedings before the District Court of Munich (AZ. 8 O 15962/08). The non-admission complaint was rejected by the BGH (VII ZR 228/11). Nadim Kashlan (LL.M., Dipl.iur.) created by lawyer