Construction company halts work despite overpayment

What is the point of this detailed discussion now? I think a certain "positive" atmosphere belongs to such projects. You can't possibly collaborate with a clear conscience like this anyway, money or not.

And surely no one seriously wants to provide legal advice here in an online forum?!

Would you even have had space on your construction site to store 800 m3 of soil? We're talking about significantly more than 500 m2 of free(!) area, which also cannot be driven over for more than half a year. Where do you think the construction contractor should have done this?

: Thanks for posting the excerpts from the construction service description.

01 The fixed price does not include additional costs that only become apparent after the preparation of the static calculations and the execution planning for structural or energy reasons.

: This passage is not included in the PDF version of the thread creator. Nevertheless, I maintain that additional costs must be paid extra based on abstract construction law regulations. It is stated in the contract, not in the construction service description.

What is the point of this detailed discussion now? I think a certain "positive" atmosphere belongs to projects like these.

You really can't collaborate in good conscience anymore anyway, money or no money.

But the thread creator has a lawsuit ongoing for the completion of the construction. She wants to enforce the collaboration by legal means. A bit more understanding for the concerns of the developer could help. ;)

And you don’t seriously want to provide legal advice here in an online forum now, do you?

Sure, why not? These are just opinions and the thread creator has to draw conclusions from them. We have been able to find quite a few contradictions and have given some food for thought.

From my point of view, the developer is 100% on legally safe ground :eek:

Can you still post the notes (last paragraph)? The online version says under §21:

Requirements from the building authority and utility providers, technical construction demands from architects and structural engineers as well as legal changes to the building regulations are, insofar as they are not included in this construction service description, not part of the scope of services.

: From my point of view, the developer is 100% on the legally safe side :eek:

I think you are wrong about that. He stopped the work, he did not keep the contract (and did not terminate it either),
But of course everyone can have their own opinion.

Can you briefly but precisely explain again where he did not comply with the contract? I'm completely lost in all this confusion right now.