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

What communication has taken place so far? Is there still room for a solution?

As a construction contractor, I probably wouldn’t be happy either if my client does not make the agreed payment at the first go, or only pays late. Was this agreed like that between you and the company, so that there was consensus on the procedure?

Otherwise, I can understand that one wants to protect oneself from not being paid for the service provided.

You write about friction, but I would still be missing further context..

I will now try to answer the questions one by one.

1) Regarding this, we have not had much discussion yet. The managing director mentioned by phone that he would like to have the following document. We will talk about it in detail during the execution planning in a personal meeting.

2) The payment delay occurred because the bank refused to transfer the first installment to the construction company without being registered in the land register. The registration took a bit longer, which caused a payment delay of 5 days. The construction company was immediately informed after the related conversation and verbally it was "no problem." There was no written extension of the payment deadline – which was our oversight.

3) The friction so far concerned the architectural management, the soil survey, and the earthworks. I recently opened two threads about this. In the first case, the architect gave us terrible advice and made many mistakes in the planning. Even after several rounds of corrections, various mistakes occurred, so that we have been unable to obtain a building permit for 3 months and have been excluded from the simplified procedure. The second point involved the construction company commissioning a soil survey and then suddenly refusing to provide it to us, although the opposite had been agreed beforehand. The justification: they had commissioned the soil survey for themselves and are not obliged to share it with us. To what extent the earthworks are to be carried out, we have not been allowed to find out before the execution planning appointment. To us, this appears non-transparent. Furthermore, we were told that the construction company does not allow a third party to carry out the earthworks under the house. Contractually, it is not stipulated that the earthworks must be carried out only by them. The justification is partly understandable: they will build the house on it and cannot be liable for third-party work.

All in all, many discrepancies are arising even before construction begins, which cause us distrust.

Yes, I just checked. It was a normal financing confirmation with us. Does it have anything to do with that? I don't think so. You do not address the questions. Could it be that you have never had trust and are therefore quite uncomfortable? Since you also do not provide us with any explanation (you are not obligated to), you should reflect on yourselves.

I have summarized our previous points of contention that have weakened our trust in the reply to .

If everyone else apparently makes malicious and careless mistakes, then maybe one should ask whether one is adopting a perspective that does not fit the situation? Hanlon's Razor?

All in all, many discrepancies arise even before construction begins, which give us distrust.

We have also worked out halfway through point 3 here that everything is correct as it is. You should then remove this from your list of distrust. It may be the same with other points. For architectural services, there are often only "limited services" for BUs, as the diligent reader here knows.

If everyone else apparently makes mistakes out of malice and negligence, then maybe one should ask whether one is taking a perspective that does not fit the situation? Hanlon’s Razor?

Emmm, I have written multiple times that the mistake lies with us. My question was not about who is right or wrong, but whether there are ways to save the situation and spare us the assignment declaration / guarantee.

I am now trying to answer the questions one by one.

1) We have not discussed this extensively yet. The managing director mentioned by phone that he would like to have the following document. We will talk about it in detail during the execution planning in a personal meeting.

There is nothing to discuss. You are obliged to fulfill the contract. It clearly states: "

So it is clear that you should obtain the guarantee immediately.

2) The payment delay occurred because the bank refused to transfer the first instalment to the construction company without being registered in the land register. The registration took a bit longer, which caused a payment delay of 5 days. The construction company was informed immediately after the conversation and verbally everything was “no problem”. There was no written extension of the payment deadline – which in turn was our oversight.

Is the contractor responsible for the payment delay? No.

3) The friction so far concerned the architectural management, the soil survey, and the earthworks. For this, I recently opened two threads. In the first case, the architect gave us terrible advice and made many mistakes in the planning. Even after several rounds of corrections, various errors occurred, which means we have not been able to obtain a building permit for 3 months and are no longer eligible for the simplified procedure. The second point was that the construction company commissioned a soil survey and suddenly did not want to share it with us, although the opposite was agreed beforehand. The reason: they commissioned the soil survey for themselves and are not obliged to share it with us. To what extent the earthworks have to be carried out, we are still not allowed to find out before the execution planning appointment. It comes across as non-transparent to us. Furthermore, we were told that the construction company does not allow a third party to carry out earthworks under the house. Contractually, it is not stipulated that the earthworks must be carried out only by them. The reason is partly understandable: they will build the house on it and cannot be liable for third-party work.

All in all, many discrepancies arise even before the start of construction, which causes us mistrust.

If you don’t want to continue building with the contractor, then termination is the only option. Whether you terminate or provoke termination by not paying or not providing the bank guarantee does not, in my opinion, make a financial difference.

Maybe the termination clause would help us further to assess this.