Additional cost due to tile size?

I, also as a layperson, see it exactly the same way. What do the "experienced" people here in the forum say?

Hello,

I, also as a layman, see it exactly the same way. What do the "experienced" people here in the forum say?

It is likely to be difficult to convince the BU – despite the notarized contract – to pay the additional costs out of their margin.

"Additional costs for installation starting from the size 33x60 cm." – This tile size does not exist; it is therefore – even for the layman – obvious that this is a typo. Should the case go to court, a settlement would certainly be reached, but – in doing so both parties lose and only the lawyers win.

Try to reach an agreement with your BU about a small concession on their part given this prospect; that would be the most cost-effective solution for all involved.

I am wondering how you would react if it were the other way around. Suppose you had unfortunately transposed a number to your disadvantage ... and your BU insisted on validity.

Addendum:

Musketier is right; thanks for your hint. My above post => this tile size does not exist <= must therefore correctly read "this tile size is generally not available in the common BB."

Rhenish regards

I am just wondering how you would react if it were the opposite case. So you had unfortunately misstated a number to your disadvantage ... and your BU insisted on validity

Rhenish greetings

The question is, what was meant? You are surely assuming 33x33. But it could just as well have been 30x60 or 33x66.
By the way, there are also 33x60 cm tiles. So why should the client become suspicious?

Hello Musketeer,

The question is, what was meant? You are certainly assuming 33x33. But it could just as well have been 30x60 or 33x66. By the way, there are also 33x60 cm tiles. So why should the builder become suspicious?

Mpfm - I really didn’t expect that comment from you

You know, I admit I’m annoyed that a simple typo immediately brings such a scenario to life; yes, even if it doesn’t affect me. People make mistakes; generally, they learn from them and develop further. "All" people!

In the vast majority of the BB, 30 x 60 tiles, if at all, are listed – usually in smaller standard sizes; by now, I know enough of them. From this, I can deduce that it must be a typo (which was suspected by the OP as well) and in the first step, it should probably be clarified where this error occurred; in the construction manager’s office or at the notary?

Either way, an unpleasant spectacle if the OP insists on his opinion that the construction manager must bear the extra costs. Moreover, his relationship with his construction manager will certainly not improve because of this – and that is as certain as Amen in church – there will also be situations where the OP will depend on the well-being of his construction manager.

So, why not see it as it is? A mistake was made … unfortunate, it would have been nice, but it was not meant to be … but that happens in the heat of the moment … Nobody can walk on water. Such an approach would move the OP forward if the pendulum then swings for real to the other side, because his construction manager will remember.

Rhenish greetings

Mpfm - I really would not have expected this comment from you

It was merely the indication that the client does not have to become suspicious based on the measurements alone. At the time of signing the contract, I had only dealt to a limited extent with actual tile sizes. So, based on the dimensions, I wouldn’t have noticed it either. However, we compared the preliminary BB (based on which we chose the construction company) 1:1 with the BB that then became part of the contract. Maybe then I would have noticed it.

I also didn’t say that one should insist on it at all costs. Especially if you want to continue building with the company. If I were in that situation, I would make my decision dependent on how the previous relationship with the construction company has been. If I have been very satisfied with everything so far, I would accommodate the company and cover the amount. Alternatively, a compromise proposal could be made that both parties can live with. If the relationship between client and construction company is already broken and ends up in court because the house is riddled with defects, then I would keep the option open to oppose it.

The question is, what was meant? You are surely assuming 33x33. But it could just as well have been 30x60 or 33x66.
By the way, there are also 33x60 cm tiles. So why should the client be suspicious?

Interesting discussion
Interesting measurements
So what error is likely here if most construction descriptions include 30 x 30 or 30 x 60?
Rather that a number is (by accident) duplicated than that a fictitious number (here: the number 6) is used. So I would assume 30 x 60 to be meant and would argue that way to the tiler as well.
Of course, it also depends on the difference amount to be paid. If you consider why larger tile sizes involve higher installation effort, a 30 x 60 tile should not be much extra effort.