It depends on whether there is a defect within the meaning of the Act. A study is defective if it does not match the result specified in the contract, for example the capacity, the intended use or the number of variants in the brief. In that case you have remedies for defects and the defects must be notified without undue delay. If the architect kept to the brief and you simply dislike the solution, that is no defect and as a rule you must pay the price.
A developer receives a study for an apartment building and finds that it has three storeys above ground instead of the four agreed, that parking is arranged differently from what it required, or that the second variant is missing. In the meantime, the architect issues an invoice. Whether it has to be paid is determined above all by what exactly the contract and the brief say. Where the parties are businesses concluding it within their business activity, a contract for the preparation of a study is a contract for works under the Commercial Code (Act No. 513/1991 Coll.), because works also include a tangibly recorded result of another activity (Section 536(2)).
When a study is defective
The right to the price arises upon performance of the works, unless the contract provides otherwise (Section 548(1)), and works are performed by their proper completion and handover (Section 554(1)). The yardstick for a defect is the contract:
Works are defective if their performance does not correspond to the result specified in the contract.
— Section 560(1) of Act No. 513/1991 Coll. (unofficial English translation)
If the brief specified the number of flats, the number of storeys, the intended use, the budget framework of the building or the number of variants, and the study departs from them, that is a defect. The position is different where the architect kept to the brief and the investor dislikes a façade or a layout that the brief did not specify. The contractor proceeds independently in performing the works and, in determining the manner of performance, is not bound by the employer’s instructions unless it has expressly undertaken to follow them (Section 537(3)). Since the yardstick for a defect is the result specified in the contract, dissatisfaction with a creative solution within the brief does not of itself give rise to a defect.
The architect may also defend itself by showing that the deviation was caused by the brief itself. It is not liable for defects caused by the employer’s unsuitable instructions if it warned of their unsuitability and the employer insisted on them, or if it could not have identified the unsuitability (Section 561). So if it warned that the land would not bear the required capacity and the investor ignored that, an argument based on a defect will not succeed. We examine the same principle in the context of construction in the question defects in works performed on the employer’s instructions.
How to proceed when you see a defect
The study should be examined as soon as possible after handover and defects notified to the architect without undue delay after you discovered them or should have discovered them (Section 562(1) and (2)). The notification should be in writing and specific: which parameter of the brief is not met and how the study departs from it.
For defects in works, the rules on defects in goods apply as appropriate (Section 564). If the defect amounts to a material breach of contract, you may demand remedy of the defect by reworking, a reasonable price reduction, or withdraw from the contract (Section 436(1)); the choice of remedy must, however, be notified in the notice of defects or without undue delay thereafter, failing which you have the remedies available for a non-material breach (Section 436(2) and (3)). On a non-material breach, you may demand remedy of the defect or a price reduction. If you demand remedy of the defect, you must allow the architect a reasonable additional period; other remedies for defects, apart from damages and a contractual penalty, may be exercised only after it has expired (Section 437(3)); you may withdraw if it fails to remedy the defect within that period and you warned it in advance of your intention to withdraw (Section 437(5)).
When a study is ‘properly completed’, and whether it may be returned for reworking before it is taken over, is not regulated in detail by the Commercial Code. On the contrary, the Act obliges the employer to take over works that have been performed (Section 537(2)). Without a contractual acceptance procedure, a dispute about whether the study matches the brief is therefore resolved only after the event, at a point when the invoice is already running.
What the contract should contain to avoid a dispute
The most effective protection is a brief annexed to the contract with measurable parameters, together with an acceptance procedure: delivery of the proposal, a period for comments, the number of rounds of revisions included in the price, written acceptance, and payment tied to acceptance rather than to handover alone. It is also advisable to agree what happens if the parties fail to agree on acceptance, and whether you will receive the part-completed study with a licence for its further use.
We prepare such a contract, or comment on the architect’s draft, through the service architectural study agreement. If a dispute has already arisen, we assess whether the departures from the brief reach the level of a defect and prepare the notice of defects with the choice of remedy.
This answer provides general information on the law as at 12 September 2026. It does not constitute legal services or replace an assessment of an individual case. The details of your situation may differ. Book a consultation to discuss them.
