Behavior/Consequences towards Construction Company

For the money a lawyer costs, I would quickly get a construction supervisor/expert. I think you would benefit more from that.

This is somehow often; too often; the case that the main contractor is trusted blindly, even with high six-figure sums. An external construction supervisor must be involved from the very beginning. What if the foundation slab was done incorrectly? That cannot be changed anymore. You can rather save the €3,000 for a nicer bathtub than for the external supervisor. But I will definitely write this several more times in this forum...

And you say that as someone for whom not much went wrong. But you're right. My expert was called conflict-averse at the shopping center around the corner. And yet I needed him several times because my [GÜ] would have otherwise completely fooled me.

I consider it problematic to so clearly and bluntly push for waiving legal advice here. It’s not about immediately rushing to a lawyer and filing a lawsuit. My advice would be to consult a lawyer now to review the contract and the possibilities arising from it. The construction company doesn’t have to know about this at all yet. It costs a few hundred euros, which in my opinion is money well spent – even in case the December deadline cannot be met.
At the same time, I agree with the other forum members who advocate arranging an interim solution immediately – while continuing to stay in contact with the construction company and keeping up the pressure (initially without threatening legal consequences).
Really stupid situation, and I wish you all the best and good perseverance!

And you say that as someone for whom not much went wrong. But you are right. My expert was called conflict-averse at the shopping center around the corner. And still, I needed him several times because otherwise my general contractor would have completely fooled me.

Not quite true. A few "little things" did go wrong. But it's not for nothing that they say there is no construction site without mistakes. After all, humans are at work there and not robots. And the robot would also have to be programmed by humans, so also prone to errors. An external construction supervisor does not prevent mistakes, but he minimizes the likelihood that some go undiscovered :cool:

Yes, an expert from the beginning would probably have been advisable. But here you also have to separate things: If the previous work is clean (which without an expert at this point you can no longer really determine, keyword foundation slab), an expert would have had nothing to complain about. The controversial issue here is "only" the schedule. And if the condition of completion in May 22 is a KO criterion for you, you should have insisted on including this date as a binding completion date in the contract. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. If the GU did not want to agree to this, that would have given me pause in your place. If May 22 was supposed to be that easy, why is it not in the contract? If delays occur that are clearly not the fault of the GU, then he is off the hook for overruns. But now we are where we are. How about the installments and the 5% retention due to you according to the Construction Contract Procedures (Baugesetzbuch). Or are there guarantees? The latter are probably difficult to use as leverage, especially since we do not yet have 12/22.

Perhaps the most exciting question now is: How can one ensure and put pressure on making sure that the house is really finished by December 22nd? From when is it clear that this date can no longer be met? Is there a schedule for when what will happen until the end of the year?