Building with GU - Offer from GU including design

The legal assessments are all incorrect. But that doesn't matter, because such things should 1. not be discussed in forums, 2. not even be considered by oneself in any way regarding the "trust contract," and 3. of course, not be attempted in a single case.

The contract for the construction of a house is an agreement in which BOTH parties must trust each other. Often, the general contractor has the upper hand and/or it is rare that they are tempted to deceive the good-faith and good-natured (inexperienced) builder.

Even the theoretical consideration of the case described here by the original poster (you can abstract as much as you want) shows that there is a fundamental willingness to lead the general contractor into a trap, if it were "risk-free" possible.

I just wanted to get that off my chest here. Even the mere approach causes me to gag.

I really find it outrageous what you are accusing me of here! No idea what problem you have with blaming me for such a plan. Do me a favor and keep your thoughts to yourself in the future, because such answers don't help me at all.

Of course, you don't like that. I'm not usually this rude, but I found the motivation behind your post very obvious.

Hello,

The legal assessments are all incorrect. But that doesn’t matter ....

You are the lawyer, not me

I felt quite a lot of dismay. Therefore, I tried – suspecting that a judge would probably speak of fraud – to make it as clear as possible for the OP. With that, I hoped – wrongly, as it now turns out – that the discussion in the forum would be settled.

I really find it outrageous what you are accusing me of here! No idea what problem you have with accusing me of such an intention.

I also consider it not far-fetched that Voki came to his, for me, understandable conclusion that theoretical engagement also implies a practical willingness.

Do me a favor and keep your thoughts to yourself in the future, because such answers don’t help me at all.

I do think it helps you. At the very least, it hopefully encourages other users not to express comparable theorizing publicly. With luck, it makes them think more about their thought processes, and you should do that too

Rhenish greetings

Well, it should not be the issue anyway, since the improper procedure is blocked insofar as the building application is submitted by the builders with their signature. Either they do it themselves or have it done, but then with a control function. Basically, however, one should reconsider their own contractual behavior. The contracting party should always be chosen in mutual trust and also treated with respect...

Nevertheless, one should also be allowed to ask this question that the original poster asked!!!

Nevertheless, one should be allowed to ask this question, which the OP asked, too!!!

I see THAT completely differently. Someone receives the planning documents they commissioned and discovers an error, whose correction would cost several thousand euros, if they initially concealed this error. The goal here is to conclude the contract for work at a lower price first and then see if, during the subsequent discussion, the main contractor can be "forced" to bear the additional costs for the correct execution themselves.

Sorry, but such intentions are at first extremely unfair, apart from pre-contractual duties and contractual secondary obligations, which also apply to the OP here.

If one were to support the discussion and legally address the described situation here, we would basically be providing instructions on how the OP could possibly profit at the expense of the main contractor. I already find the approach of a seriously conducted substantive discussion extremely unprofessional. In my opinion, something like this does not belong in the forum.

The OP may now again perceive this as an accusation; I simply lack belief that this was not exactly planned this way. Let him indignantly deny it—I do not believe a word of it.

PS: With that, this discussion is also over for me. I will not comment further on this.