BÜ wants a declaration of assignment. How to avoid it?

Sounds pretty good already. You can also refer to the construction company that you announced you would only make the payment once the land registry matter is settled. Since there was no objection there, it is also questionable whether there was even a delay. The bank probably has good advice as well.

In my opinion, the general contractor will not let the option of the assignment declaration be taken away. Put yourself in the position of the general contractor. You regularly try to circumvent contractually regulated matters. For the general contractor, it is rather a fortunate coincidence that you did not meet the bank's payment requirements at the time of payment to serve the installment from the payment plan. This is not the first mistake you have made. Therefore, the general contractor would be pretty stupid to give up this newly gained leverage.

By the way, what does the payment plan look like? But take comfort, he can only demand what "he" believes to have performed.

Now the good gentleman, the owner of the construction company, informed us that he would like to have a declaration of assignment from us. This clearly creates a disadvantage/high risk for us.

Now it is such that it is contractually possible for the construction company to demand this service from us.

Is there a possibility for us now not to comply with the construction company's demand? What happens in this case if we refuse such an obligation?

It all is already contained in this. The general contractor is asserting his contractual right and you do not want to fulfill the contract. By doing so, you are proving yourself to be a contractual opponent and not a contractual partner. Possibly, you are attributing to the general contractor your own mindset of acting only for your own benefit. Consider your house construction from the outcome perspective. What would be the better way to deal with each other under these circumstances? Tip: The general contractor has no interest in games, he earns his money with a smooth process. Even the lawyer who advised you about the possibly contestable due date of the first invoice recommends solution-oriented communication instead of confrontation.

In my opinion, the GU will not let the option of the assignment declaration be taken away. Put yourself in the position of the GU. You regularly try to circumvent contractually regulated matters. For the GU, it is rather a fortunate coincidence that you did not meet the bank's disbursement conditions at the time of payment in order to service the installment from the payment plan. This is not the first mistake you have made either. Therefore, the GU would be pretty stupid to give up this newly gained leverage. By the way, what does the payment plan look like? But comfort yourself, he can only demand what "he" believes he has performed.

What facts am I constantly trying to circumvent? Sometimes it is almost absurd what assumptions users make based on these small pieces of information that I describe here. The whole thing is taking a very one-sided direction with some who see me as the scapegoat and therefore try to justify the situation that has arisen through my claims against the BF. I would be overjoyed if it had gone differently than it did. If I hadn’t had to go to the architect 5(!!!!!) times to sign new plans and applications because she constantly made trivial mistakes. Even from the building authority officer I received a statement that he would have granted us the building permit immediately if there had been gross errors in the application documents. However, the managing director defended the architect and completely shifted the blame onto the building authority. But that is no excuse for ignoring points required in the development plan. For me, such behavior is a sign of lacking professionalism or honesty. We pay for these mistakes with time and money. Nevertheless, we never considered not paying for the service or anything like that. I do not believe that any other builder would find such a situation pleasant and acceptable. Nevertheless, I never let the communication escalate and always defined my problems in a friendly tone. Rightfully so.

Everything is already included there. The general contractor is claiming his contractual right and you do not want to comply with the contract. By doing so, you show yourself as an opponent to the contract and not as a partner. Possibly you attribute to the general contractor your own way of thinking, acting only for your own benefit.
Consider your house construction from the result perspective. Under these circumstances, what would be the better way to deal with each other?
Tip: The general contractor has no interest in games; he earns his money with a smooth process. Even the lawyer who advised you about the possibly contestable due date of the first invoice recommends solution-oriented communication instead of confrontation.

I have actually made it clear in almost all of my postings that we are also seeking a solution without a legal dispute. Because in the end, we ultimately suffer losses as a result. Unfortunately. So I see the situation as disadvantageous to us. But why should I simply give the construction company freedom from payment without any security for myself – I don’t understand that. Moreover, it has now apparently turned out that he is not entitled to demand such a thing.

Which facts am I constantly trying to avoid?

1) The fact of the flat rate fixed price offer and additional founding claims by the general contractor even though it is stated in the contract. 2) The fact of founding by third parties and the loss of warranty on the entire house 3) The fact of a contractually regulated assignment declaration after a payment default has occurred

I have actually made it clear in every one of my posts that we are also aiming for a solution without legal dispute. Because ultimately, we end up bearing losses.

That is simply because you believe you can circumvent the construction performance description and the general contractor contract because you think you are being disadvantaged. The stupid thing is that the general contractor only refers to things that you signed in the construction contract but simply don’t get.