Contract for work Right of withdrawal

Hello, in our signed contract for work according to the Building Code, there is a handwritten addendum. The contract becomes valid when the financing confirmation is provided or when everything regarding the property is finalized notarized. If one makes use of the right of objection for the financing confirmation, would the content of the contract for work still be valid? Should one expect a compensation payment? Thank you

Hello colongne152. It depends. According to the wording of the contract (if your explanations are complete in this regard), the "Financing Confirmation" alone, i.e., merely a binding offer from a credit institution, is sufficient for the work contract to become "valid." Therefore, it does not depend on the conclusion of a credit agreement but only on the obtainability of the financing.

That probably was not meant that way. You surely only wanted to be bound to the work contract if the measure as a whole could be carried out. This then means the possible purchase of the property after the financing approval by the bank.

Now one would certainly have to look at the exact text and any further correspondence if one wanted to interpret the intended contractual content. However, interpretation by the court only takes place if the main contract is not clear in its provisions, which may also have occurred due to differing assumptions (supported by correspondence / emails / witness statements).

If you therefore want (or have to) cancel the effectiveness of the work contract, then quickly go to the lawyer of your trust and see if this can still be prevented.

At first, I would suspect that your revocation of the financing cannot annul the effectiveness of the work contract. Culpa in contrahendo also applies to you, and there was the "Financing Confirmation." Very good other arguments would now have to be brought to the table.

Is one obligated to initiate financing in such a case? If not, there is no financing commitment... The other condition seems to have been (as I understand it) that a plot of land must be found/purchased(?)/available(?)/paid for(?) in order for the contract to be valid. Does the original poster have to make an effort for this or prove it in case of a dispute?

There is no mention here of a notarization having taken place for the land purchase agreement. It would also be questionable what is meant by "everything regarding the land is fixed" now. I suspect that the concluded land purchase agreement was what was meant.

Of course, one is not obliged to "initiate" financing. But why then should one sign a contract for work for the construction of a single-family house? Such an obligation would be worthless anyway, since one could easily prevent the approval of a loan.

Nevertheless, I would be wary of entering into a contract for work lightly if I really do not want to build. The contractor will surely suspect in case of doubt that there was a genuine intention to conclude the contract and push for damages. The effort and the uncertain prognosis of the judgment make such an approach at least a small adventure.

Jokingly and subjunctive? The contract is already signed ... I would also strongly advise consulting a lawyer if you have "actually" only been considering not fulfilling this contract after all. Cases must also be documented in the forum where simple "neglect" of financing was by no means accepted as valid by the contracting party.

Best regards

K1300S

Hello, first of all thank you for the comments. The desire to build was there. However, since the signing, there have been some things, without going into them first, that have sustainably affected the trust in a negative way. Therefore, I am considering this step. I expect the financing confirmation tomorrow or Tuesday.