Cancellation of a contract with a plumbing company

That just seems like you want to make a lot of excuses. Why, wherefore, and how is not clear now. What exactly is the problem? Did you draft the letter? Whoever comes up with something like that is probably often not the "easiest" customer either.

I wrote the letter myself. I really only use it for this trade. Theoretically, I could and can still use it for other trades. But I don’t do it out of moral reasons and am even fair enough to advise the companies to pay attention to this in the future. Because for the small ones, it is certainly threatening to their existence. With all the other trades, we got along very well. In the majority of cases, 100% of what was invoiced was paid. And if there were defects, a fair agreement was made (for both sides). Only this trade annoys me terribly. First, it was promised that the work would be finished after time "x". A delay was no problem. However, not two people showed up as promised, but only one. And he worked a maximum of three hours a day and usually no more than four days a week. After seven days of invoicing the third interim invoice, the work was stopped. I was insulted because I would not pay invoices. It was only after multiple explanations that the gentleman understood that the payment is not due after seven days when he writes 7 days 2% discount. Above all, I was accused of having already fully used the discount period on the first two interim payments. That his interim invoices were not agreed upon in the first place and especially not partial payments, and yet I paid without reservation, was even harder to explain. When he again couldn’t keep an appointment and stopped work without reason, I terminated him extraordinarily. However, with the note that we could conclude a termination agreement in the interest of both parties (I also handed him two versions). In which, as he also noted, I was very accommodating. In the course of the termination agreement and a handover protocol, two obligations were imposed on him. On the one hand, to deliver tiles by day "x" and to remedy defects by day "x". Neither was complied with. Although I was not willing to generously settle again for the damage we incurred, I nevertheless submitted a fair offer. He continues to declare the acceptance invalid, which is completely absurd since the risk still lies with him. Now his lawyer suggested that I keep 800 EUR BUT at the same time waive all rights. Since this "offer" was immoral, I have now shot back immorally. Added to this is the whole background, with accusations against us, twisting of facts and provable false claims, and really absolute lack of insight, and then the nerve of the lawyer with this "offer". If I accepted it, I would, for example, have waived the warranty. If the bathroom were or became leaky, I would be stuck with a certain five-figure amount with three small children. That was then the last straw that made the barrel overflow.

I don't believe your view would hold up in court.
If the Building Code is interpreted the way does, a craftsman could practically never conclude a legally secure contract. The 'consumer' can always revoke.
In my opinion, in both cases there simply is no right of revocation.
In the case of , however, this is not necessary at all since there are sufficient other reasons for extraordinary termination and settlement of the contractual relationship.

Of course, the craftsman can conclude a legally secure contract. He must (properly) inform about the right of withdrawal. However, if the craftsman starts working before the end of the "normal" 14-day period, he should have this confirmed. There is no disadvantage for the craftsman:

The lack of a claim for compensation does not constitute an unreasonable disadvantage for the entrepreneur, as the entrepreneur can, under the conditions of § 356 para. 4 sentence 1 of the Building Code, achieve that the right of withdrawal expires (see also Möller, BB 2014, 1411, 1418)

As I wrote: I fundamentally follow the reasoning of the judgment of 02.06.2017, file number: 23 O 47/16

One can also search for "wideruf stuttgart dachdecker." There are not only results with lawyers, but also the Chamber of Crafts points this out (under the motto: Dear craftsman, remember to agree on this...")

I can keep you updated on how it turns out for me. But as written, I adhere to the reasoning of the judgment mentioned above (OLG) since the conditions are identical and the outcome is therefore (actually) clear.

I can understand that many dismiss this and say, that cannot be, that is impossible. Also my wife when I told her that I see no way out anymore and am now taking this step. There are other cases, e.g. "vertical lift," in which the consumer may keep the materials and work, and the craftsman must repay all payments made to him.

Crazy case with the roofer from Stuttgart. But I believe a doorstep transaction (!) according to § 312b is fulfilled in very few cases. For that, one would have to receive the offer directly at the door like the 80-year-old couple from Stuttgart and agree immediately. It is also a requirement that the craftsman initiates contact with the customer. Who does that happen to?

It is a business transaction conducted outside the craftsman's business premises. This also includes offers sent via email. Especially in times of Covid, this is not uncommon. In our case, all trades, except for the shell construction, were concluded outside the business premises. It no longer matters who takes the initiative.

"According to § 312 b of the Building Code, for a contract concluded outside the business premises following the implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive in the summer of 2014, it no longer matters whether the entrepreneur appeared at the consumer’s request or on whose initiative the contract negotiation or conclusion took place."