Forgetting baseboard installation and expansion joint - Who is liable?

Hello,

the following situation: We are currently interested in a 6-year-old solid house, to which a concrete base for the terrace was later added. Now, the exterior wall at this point cracks open during the cold season, revealing the thermal insulation. Allegedly, this has happened several times already. The assumption is that the expansion joint was forgotten when the base was added.

According to the real estate agent, this "defect" will be remedied and everything is fine. However, we have since learned that (only) this year an evidence collection procedure is underway in court and the defect still has to be established and recognized by the court.

We are now wondering whether the installation of an expansion joint here is prescribed according to DIN or similar standards, or corresponds to the state of the art, and whether the court is likely to determine the defect?

Alternatively, we would like to know what the professional correction of the whole thing would cost in order to deduct these costs from the purchase price?

Pictures sometimes say more than 1000 words.

I wouldn't know what kind of concrete base would be added afterwards.

And you can only say something about the costs if you know the size ratios.

As a possible idea for the purchase contract: e.g. withhold 5% of the purchase price until all ongoing procedures and defect rectifications are completed.

Technically, I would fundamentally assume a good assessment from a publicly appointed expert, and since this is already in court, I assume that the technical problem will also be addressed in the proceedings.

You pay a lot of money for a notary (and even a broker) for your purchase contract processing. Let them do something for their money.

As a possible idea for the purchase contract: e.g. withhold 5% of the purchase price sum until all ongoing procedures and defect rectifications are completed.

Technically, I would generally assume a publicly appointed expert to provide a good assessment, and since this is already before a court, I assume that the technical problem will also be addressed in the procedure.

You pay a lot of money to a notary (and even an agent) for your purchase contract processing. Let them do something for their money.

Our bank and also the Sparkasse both calculate with a risk of up to €50,000 (almost 10%) since the defect has not yet been described in detail and we bear the risk that the court case will turn out adverse.
In this constellation, one can no longer rely on a fraudulently concealed defect, so we bear a considerable risk.

The two banks have now independently assessed the achievable market price of the property. For a defect-free property, it is almost €70k (20%) less than what we are paying. So the house is already overpriced anyway.

If you then add the €50k risk, we are at a point where the bank advises us against the purchase or the financing – although we would get it thanks to a high equity share.

The Sparkasse advises us to use a trust account and payout of €50k upon repair; the house bank directly demands a purchase price reduction. Also here the same: we can do it, but they advise us against it.

The agent wants to explain this to the owners... Uff^^