GU demands a price increase on the entire house

A partial acceptance - even fictitious - is not associated with this, consequently the view that one is now explicitly released regarding the partial performances specified there is also incorrect.

An acceptance of the trades or the entire contract plays no role whatsoever in the occurrence of additional costs and in my opinion has no influence on enforcing higher costs. The question is whether exceeding the deadline of the fixed price can automatically lead to an arbitrary adjustment of the price? I have serious doubts about that. What if the general contractor now demands an additional price of 1 million? He would have to prove that in case of doubt, and in my opinion this is where the catch lies. One must be able to assume that the price was cost-covering for the general contractor up to day X. From day X onwards, no longer. Accordingly, he must break down the costs. I cannot imagine how a judge could decide differently here.

What else is needed to realize that it would be better to just leave it?

We all agree that an amicable settlement is always preferable to a legal dispute. Nevertheless, it is interesting to know how the situation would be decided in the specific case if it came to a clash.

A takeover of the trades or of the entire contract plays absolutely no role in the occurrence of additional costs and in my opinion has no influence on the enforcement of higher costs. The question is whether exceeding the deadline of the lump sum price can automatically lead to an arbitrary readjustment of the price? I have strong doubts about that. What if the general contractor now demands an additional price of 1 million? He would have to prove that in case of doubt, and in my opinion that's where the crux of the matter lies. One must be allowed to assume that the price was cost-covering for the GC until day X. From day X onwards, no longer. Accordingly, he must break down the costs. I cannot imagine how a judge could decide differently here.

How do you come to the conclusion that the adjustment presented here is arbitrary? Even if one initially assumes that the GC would just try it out and see if it works. He will not be completely off any contractual basis with that. There is a lump sum price. You don't have to break down anything there, that's why it's called a lump sum price. We would never, ever disclose our calculations, purchase prices, or margins to a customer. These are strictly confidential information that concern our competitiveness...

So in general, if I buy a house and the contract states a fixed price with the corresponding services that must be provided for that price, then as a buyer I assume that the materials for this house are already paid for and available at that time. Otherwise, such a contract is pointless. Not to mention fraud.

I would accept it if there is an increase in the hourly wage for the craftsmen building this house. But even these increases should already be included in the fixed price by the provider or seller. And even if not, 16% of the total price certainly doesn't make much of a difference.

With such trickery, one can really only speak of fraud. I don't know if there are graduated installments for already completed construction phases in such prefabricated houses. But if so, it's strange that the general contractor only comes with the increase after receiving the entire installments.

And taking the roof covering into your own hands is not an option?

And taking the roofing into your own hands is not an option?

Sure. Just tell the main contractor, "Hey, I'll do the rest myself, you’ve gotten enough money, I think."

How do you come to the conclusion that the adjustment presented here is arbitrary?

I discussed the theory with 11ant, not the specific case or even your company.

A flat rate is charged.

Which changes significantly after the contract is concluded.
Price changes in existing contracts regularly lead to special termination rights.