GU demands a price increase on the entire house

Don't forget that there are also many clever comments here from people who already live in their finished houses and no longer have to worry about disputes with the [GU]... 15k is nothing compared to a long-term legal dispute.

I find your lawyer's statement very poor 50k more for what? On what basis? Have everything disclosed, original calculation, old purchase prices, new purchase prices. The additional price can legally only relate to the part that is built after the price lock expires?! So as you write, at most 18.66% of the construction costs. Don't let yourself be pressured, the construction companies just want to save their margin.

I think the lawyer just wants to save us from a legal dispute. I told him about the disclosure as well. He immediately said he won't do that. I will tell him tomorrow that if it goes to court he will have to disclose everything anyway. In my opinion, a price increase is not for that purpose. Rather, it is to compensate for the increased material costs.

You want to threaten with a lawsuit right away? Get well soon! Ask your lawyer first what he thinks about the idea...

I think the lawyer just wants to save us from a legal dispute. I also told him about the disclosure. He immediately said he wouldn't do it. I will tell him tomorrow that if it goes to court, he will have to disclose everything anyway. In my opinion, a price increase is not for that. It's meant to compensate for the increased material costs.

I would be cautious with what he has to disclose in court, etc., he might perceive that later as a threat. And as long as the house is not finished, the general contractor also holds the upper hand. I would steer the conversation more towards the "we can't afford it this way" angle, even if you actually can. The general contractor also has an interest in getting his money. Gather your arguments that the house would basically have been completed at that price if the approval had not taken so long, that you are willing to pay extra for the missing trades, etc. Personally, I wouldn't let the lawyer and court stuff slip out immediately, but rather when he refuses to compromise, that legal advice will be sought, etc.

By the way, I also don't believe that your construction time guarantee is still valid if the construction is at a standstill due to legal disputes. In case you are speculating to win and then accuse the general contractor of a 2-3 year delay.

I would think carefully about the matter of a lawsuit (or even just the threat of one). Essentially, the horse has already bolted when such an unfavorable contract was signed. Even if the flat rate is only fixed for a limited period, there should be something in the contract about an alternative ending? As it stands, it is simply open-ended. He could now demand 200k. Where is the limit of good taste, what is reasonable, what is legitimate? I find the wording itself more than dubious.

But be careful with a lawsuit against a construction company. They may have the stronger hand, also financially. Such lawsuits quickly become very expensive. Every legal expenses insurance excludes disputes over real estate for good reason. No one covers these costs except yourself, and you would have to come out of a lawsuit as a winner not to be stuck with your costs. In a settlement, each side already pays its own legal costs, and that quickly goes into amounts for which you would have to take out a new loan.