Claim missing equipment, hydraulic switch after acceptance

I would like to see a judgment where a decision like this was made.

Here you go:

For example
BGH, 19.01.2017, VII ZR 301/13, see para. 35.

It is also stated in § 634 II of the Construction Contract Act.

With acceptance, the claim for performance transforms, among other things, into a warranty obligation relationship and the burden of proof for defects lies with the client, no longer with the contractor.

In your case not impossible, but now difficult due to the reversal of the burden of proof.

After the initial consultation with the lawyer, the situation looks as follows to me: It is clear that the acceptance took place, but as a layperson, it does not necessarily have to have been recognizable that the hydraulic separator was not installed. Therefore, if it can be said that as a layperson, I could not have recognized during the acceptance whether and what was installed in/on the heating system, then there is clearly a defect because the agreed services were not provided.

I don't even know what that is, although I have been reading almost every post here since 2014 [emoji44]

After initial consultation with the lawyer, the situation looks as follows to me: It is clear that the acceptance has taken place, but as a layperson it does not necessarily have to have been recognizable that the hydraulic separator was not installed. So if one can say that I as a layperson could not recognize at the acceptance whether and what was installed in/on the heating system, there is clearly a defect since the agreed services were not provided.

My words

Sofern man also sagen kann, dass ich als Laie, es bei der Abnahme gar nicht erkennen kann, ...

You can say almost anything. But that helps you little. You are free to consult an expert beforehand. Ignorance does not protect against its consequences, otherwise the entire acceptance would be pointless. You cannot accept something and afterwards claim that the acceptance is void because the client is unfortunately a layperson in the areas of heating engineering, electrical engineering, etc.

You can say almost anything. But that helps you little. You are free to consult an expert in advance. Ignorance does not protect against its consequences, otherwise the entire acceptance would be pointless. You cannot accept something and later claim that the acceptance is void because the client is unfortunately a layperson in the fields of heating technology, electrical engineering, etc.

The layperson argument at least worked with my general contractor... The appointment for the correction is set. :)