Contract unclear: humus earth collectors

Hello,
our construction is set to begin in a month, we will be building with a general contractor (GU).
How does the following situation look:

According to the performance construction description, the houses of our GU have an air heat pump.

During the earthworks for the basement slab, the reapplication of the topsoil is clearly excluded (OK, as it is not further relevant for the house itself).

In an additional agreement, a brine heat pump was agreed upon at the offered fixed price with the following addition: "Energy generation via ground collectors installed in the soil." This means there is no exclusion for the topsoil here, and during the conversation before signing the contract, it was mentioned on inquiry that all earthworks are included for the ground collector. The reapplication of the topsoil stored on the property for 400 sqm is now supposed to cost a flat additional 1500€.

Do we have to pay this?
Thanks

Greetings from Berlin,
Michael

Good evening Michael,

[...] The reapplication of the topsoil stored on the property for 400 sqm is now supposed to cost an additional flat rate of €1500.

Do we have to pay that?

I’m afraid so, if the additional agreement regarding the ground source heat pump service does not explicitly include the earthworks.

It does not apply that what is not excluded in writing has been purchased, but rather that what has been confirmed in writing definitely belongs to the owed service ;)

Best regards from the Rhineland

One should not make it that simple. I assume that these works were not explicitly mentioned in the contract. However, the question is how a reasonably thinking third party would be allowed to understand this contract. If the contract is also otherwise structured in such a way that service components are not broken down into their individual tasks, but rather only the desired result is summarized, then this provision could possibly be interpreted to mean that certainly neither the shifting of the topsoil nor the laying of the collectors were intended alone, but naturally also the refilling of the excavated field.

So it depends on the entire contract and not on a tiny excerpt of the formulations. ;)

Good morning,

... then this regulation might possibly be interpreted in such a way that it certainly did not mean moving the topsoil and laying the collectors, but of course also refilling the excavated field.

Then I am curious to see what the respective general contractor thinks of your interpretation, or how they shape the relationship between subcontractor and general contractor. It concerns me that the subcontractor did not specify the additional cost for the ZV "energy generation via surface collectors installed in the ground" and has otherwise held back information.

So it depends on the overall contract and not on a tiny snippet of the wording. ;)

One "could" see it that way, but I lack faith ... although I am also an atheist :D

Rhenish greetings

"One could" see it that way, but I lack the belief ... though I am also an atheist :D

I too am rather the wrong person for questions of faith. ;) Unfortunately, one often only learns the full story gradually. It's a bit like ping pong when the "selection" of information by the inquirer is somewhat driven by the desired outcome. The weighting of the facts then sometimes swings intensely back and forth. ;)

Thanks in advance, the contractual relationship is structured as follows: There is a contract document based on an offer and a service description. The service description is of course quite detailed, but an earth collector is not mentioned there, only the air heat pump as standard. The offer with house size and floor plans was supplemented accordingly with the above sentence. A price for the earth collector is not listed in the offer but included in the final price.