Botch on the interior staircase or do I have to accept it like this?

Hmm no?
Google says that they make the payment if the client fails to pay despite being requested.
As said, if approval from the client were required for this, this guarantee would make no sense for the general contractor.

He wants this guarantee precisely for that reason. Because at the end of the construction, sometimes the client simply runs out of money and can't pay... or because he withholds huge sums due to minor defects.

What I mean is, if you have this guarantee, you basically have no leverage, because the general contractor gets his money. It is a misconception that he is now missing 11,000 EUR and must do everything to get this money from the client, even if it means ordering a new staircase. That is not true.

Well, but the bank will make sure that the construction status is actually as stated before they really pay out money. They won't do that blindly. However, whether they do that by asking the client, with an expert, or simply based on photos from the contractor, I don't know. I can well imagine, though, that for example a payment can be quickly stopped with a defect report from an expert. That's all for the general part. In the specific case, I fear that this will probably be considered a cosmetic defect. Because if there is no sampling protocol and also no detailed planning, it's simply one statement against another, and then the construction standard of the general contractor (GC, whatever) probably applies. And he will simply say that this is the standard. The statement of married couples weighs, as far as I know, not so heavily, at least in case of doubt you count as one party (but I am just an amateur).

He wants this guarantee precisely for that reason. Because at the end of the construction, the builder sometimes simply runs out of money and cannot pay... or because he withholds huge sums over minor defects.

But the exact opposite is the case. The guarantee is taken out by the general contractor in the name of the builder so that the builder does not withhold the 5% in advance. The corresponding document goes to the builder, and the guarantee may only be released after it is returned. It goes without saying that the general contractor then has claims against the builder if the builder wrongfully withholds the guarantee.

Bringing a little light into the BÜ darkness as a banker:

1. The BÜ concluded in Germany are usually surety bonds with waiver of defense.
2. The BÜ corresponds to cash.
3. The beneficiary of the surety can at any time (!!!) without any reason (!!!) call the BÜ and receive the money paid out (if the BÜ is designed as in 1. = normal case).
4. The bank or insurance company issuing the BÜ does not check anything at all. It doesn’t have to. There is a clearly defined BÜ contract, which always states "payable on first demand."
5. The bank then recovers the money from the principal of the BÜ.
6. If the BÜ is called unlawfully, legal action must be taken (surety provider and surety beneficiary).

Die Bürgschaft wird vom GU auf den Namen des Bauherren abgeschlossen

And in conclusion: Something like that is impossible. The client commissions the bank (if they are to provide a BÜ) or the contractor (if they are to provide the BÜ). A surety is like a loan. Creditworthiness is also checked/considered there.

And to conclude: Something like this is impossible.

I must have mixed up the terms. It should have been the developer, not the general contractor. Because I have exactly that.

For me, there is a developer=client and a buyer=myself. The developer has entered into a guarantee with an insurance company with a payment promise in the form of a direct guarantee from the insurance company to me for the purpose of securing that the developer completes the work on time and without significant defects.

Here, they also speak of a GC; perhaps the case is different there. If so, I apologize for causing confusion.

There is both. On the one hand, a guarantee from the construction company to you, usually over the 10% that your right of retention according to the Construction Code would be, so that you don’t withhold it but pay it out, because you have the guarantee.

Then there is also the case where the company demands a guarantee from you, so that they can be sure they really get the money.
I probably wouldn’t sign that anymore based on the explanations from .

For me, it went well. The guarantee (the second one) was also included for me but the general contractor never actually demanded it. He probably didn’t even know he had it in the contract. haha