Execution planning first agreed upon - then excluded?

But quickly with baseless accusations. But poor style seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the industry.

Every pot finds its lid


Rhenish greetings from the road
Construction expert

I think it is often the case that the signed contracts are subsequently accepted/signed by the company, which is all fine. What personally bothers me and what is certainly not okay is to make a change after the signing by the client and then sign it, hoping that it might not be noticed immediately.

I think the entrepreneur has responded here to his adjustment of the contract offer in a really nice and friendly manner. This is rather the exception than the rule. And the original poster (OP) also saw the limitation directly, so it was not hidden. Here, the two parties did not agree. The seller possibly assumed something that the entrepreneur does not want / cannot provide. Presumably, this had never been an issue before, so the seller’s statement may have been somewhat premature, but basically not malicious.

Why should the entrepreneur then be forced to stick to this wording and consequently not realize the calculated profit from the construction project? He needs the margin that results from his calculation. He probably does not run the business as a hobby.

Since he knows that sellers are allowed to make some concessions, he reserves a right of correction in case of overly dynamic results. He also writes this directly into the contract. Usually, it is indeed accepted that way. The OP - also aware of this formality - probably assumed this as well. Now, however, the situation is different – which is explainable. Why should he give his sellers such a far-reaching power of attorney when he plainly knows about such circumstances? I wouldn’t do that either and would not think badly of it.

Everyone may come to "their" own conclusion. I cannot understand the many negative insinuations here. Especially not that they escalate into insulting remarks. These may sometimes be appropriate, but in my opinion absolutely not here.

Make peace.

No contract was concluded here, and that’s that. This was recognizable and, in the end, absolutely correct. Personal disappointments should be dealt with in a different way.

What bothers me:

The seller who is an employee of the company and has been commissioned to negotiate a contract with a customer presents a contract created by the company to the buyer.

That change proposals made by the buyer may first need to be approved by the entrepreneur may still be acceptable. But even here, a clear verbal notice during the negotiation with the customer would be the least one could expect.

In this case, however, the entrepreneur changes the contract he himself proposed, which he had the customer sign first.

Legally, this is correct thanks to the final wording.

Morally, in my humble opinion, it is not. And blaming the lack of competence of the sellers also seems questionable to me; in that case, as an entrepreneur, you have to negotiate your contracts yourself and let the seller only sell.

Oleda...Voki1... You are both right. When signing together with the seller, we were not aware that anything could still be changed in the contract. We thought that if the seller and we sign, then the contract is valid. Be that as it may, many contract modifications were indeed changed according to our wishes. Only the matter of the said execution planning is still pending. It is important to us – the expert had told us that we would receive a 1:50 version of the execution planning. The answer is still outstanding (Christmas holidays). Likewise, the expert’s answer as to whether 1:75 is sufficient for him is still pending. We were able to inquire about the latter scale by phone with one of the employed architects.