GU demands a price increase on the entire house

I'm only concerned about the additional demand which I just find exaggerated. The boss himself wrote in an email that the whole house costs 51k more. But we are almost finished and are supposed to pay the increase for the entire house? I think that's wrong... or how do you see it?

I would also find something else fair, but unfortunately what I personally find fair doesn't count that much ;)

From the contractor's point of view, I basically find it understandable that he throws the 50k out there as a shocker (aka, you can give it a try, maybe no one will resist). But I suspect he already strongly anticipated that you would negotiate it down.

So my impression would also be, yes, gather arguments why it should be less, possibly also with a lawyer(?) and then go back in with that.

I would find something else fair as well, but unfortunately what I personally find fair doesn't count that much ;) From the entrepreneur's side, I first find it understandable that he throws the 50k as a shocker into the room (aka, you can try it, maybe one doesn't resist). But I suspect he also strongly expected that you would negotiate that down. So my impression would also be, yes, gather arguments why it should be less, possibly also with the lawyer(?) and then go back into the race with that.

Yes, that is understandable to me as well. But you can't demand an increase for what is already finished, can you? For example: the shell construction cost 20k. Now he wants 5k more even though that already happened a long time ago and within the fixed price. Unfortunately, I can't find anything legal except a judgment from the OLG Hamm. But you have to twist it in order to apply it... that's why I thought someone of you has been in the same situation. I know that the general contractor did that with another builder with 40k. However, they haven't started building yet.

You can still ask a second lawyer. If he also says "Agree on the range of 15-20k," then I would do that. It’s annoying, but you can really only lose.

I also understand it to mean that the expiration of the price fixing for services already rendered no longer plays a role. Otherwise, you wouldn't need price fixing at all. However, I am not a lawyer and am quite surprised by the expert's statement.

Yes, it is understandable to me as well. But you can't demand an increase on what is already completed, can you?

To my understanding (warning, layman’s opinion, no legal advice): Yes, because: Usually, you agree on a lump sum price for the entire house, and during the construction period you only make interim payments. However, these do not have an acceptance effect. Only at the final acceptance of the house at the end of the construction project is the entire service accepted at once, and the full price becomes due. It’s similar to paying installments for your gas consumption throughout the year, but what counts in the end is the annual statement.

A good example of this was seen in the Corona year, when VAT was reduced. All builders wanted to accept their houses within that year because the final invoice was then 3% cheaper, which makes a huge difference on a six-figure house price. In the months before, interim payments were also made with 19% VAT. This was then offset in the final invoice.

However, I am not a lawyer and am quite surprised by the expert's statement.

I also rather suspect here that he possibly assesses it in such a way that an actual legal dispute would be more expensive and therefore considers a settlement to be more sensible. But this is just a guess.

that's why I thought someone of you has been in the same situation.

I think there are a few posts here from when the project was still ongoing, where increase letters then arrived. For example here but I don't know how it ultimately ended. I also have in mind that there were unexpected increases later in the project with , but I am currently having trouble finding a thread to see whether it was somehow comparable or not at all.