Have the work contract checked by a professional

Hi, I’m interested in how closely you look and whether you have had your construction contract, developer contract, or purchase contract legally/technically reviewed.

If yes, how much did it cost? Did you subsequently need any changes? Were the changes accepted by the other party? Did you perhaps even withdraw? Was the review worth it?

If no, why not? Basic trust? Haven’t thought about it? Saved costs?

We will have the developer contract reviewed by a specialist lawyer. That will probably cost around 250 euros.

I also want to speak up for this. Anyone without experience in reviewing contracts should definitely have the contract for work (or whatever the contractor may call this contractual document) and the construction management description reviewed by a lawyer. It is not even about the things that anyone can read, but rather about the provisions that are not included in the contract but absolutely should be.

This relatively small expense can sometimes save thousands of euros during the course of the construction project (and often afterwards), compared to signing without changes.

Contractors do not like it when their contracts are altered. This is especially true when the contractor is unscrupulous. It is often the case that contracts should not be concluded if they contain many unknowns or if the provisions are heavily weighted in favor of the company and at the same time adjustments (if at all) are made only reluctantly and/or incompletely.

Unfortunately, for many builders the desire for exactly THIS house in exactly THIS location is so strong that contracts are very often signed without any review or changes. A good clientele for forum posts, specialized construction law attorneys, and shows like Bauretter and the like.

We had our contract and all appendices reviewed. Just to have a good feeling.

We checked it ourselves as laymen while receiving very good feedback/explanations from the builder when we asked questions. I agree with you that a professional review of the contract for work is not bad. We had a reliable, reputable, trustworthy building partner – there were no traps or anything similar built in. Exactly what was agreed upon was delivered, and the missing items (self-installation of the joint strips, self-installation of the doors, etc.) were explicitly pointed out.

Hello,

We will have the builder contract reviewed by a specialist lawyer.

I want to slightly disagree with "voki," even though I basically understand and welcome his plea in favor of a lawyer!

From my experience, lawyers are not particularly good at reading and assessing builder contracts; however, no one can match them in legal matters. In this respect, in my opinion, money should be spent on both a lawyer and an expert if prospective builders want to be reasonably on the safe side.

Furthermore, I have to stand up for all the reputable providers in this country:

Contractors don’t like it very much when their contracts are tampered with. This is all the more true if the contractor is unscrupulous.

There are good reasons why contracts cannot simply be altered! This is also not possible with our contracts; however, I occasionally add annexes at the request of the builders, which are legally binding for us as a supplement to the contract for work. Interestingly, this always happens when a certain association entrusted with protecting the builders' interests is involved; I have not yet seen such requests from lawyers.

Because I have already had the opportunity to evaluate one or two contracts including annexes, and I am often consulted even during provider selection, I know that the reputable competitors (and there are far more of them than the forums make us believe) handle it similarly. With all those I have had written or telephone contact with, we have ultimately found a mutually satisfactory solution. So far, there has only been one case where I urgently recommended consulting a lawyer.

Of course, it also has a lot to do with how one calls into the forest. Also, it should not be forgotten that there are quite understandable reasons why contracts are reviewed by lawyers before they even make their way into a provider’s business policy; contractors/general contractors/general planners/developers have had to gain experiences with "customer is king" ... not always are the contractors the bad guys ahead of time.

... and shows like Bauretter and the like.

Those who make it as a template into these formats are, in my opinion, more than just "resistant to learning" — exceptions of course confirm the rule here as well.

Rhenish greetings

Dear building expert,

The devil is in the details. This certainly also applies to the construction description, which includes both a technical and a legal part. It is certain that one will also be confronted with "general" descriptions (...well-shaped white hand washbasin). Here and in the rest, quite a few pitfalls are hidden that first need to be navigated around.

My contribution is also understood as part of my tireless mission regarding the "engagement of a building expert."

In my opinion, it only makes sense if both are engaged, even if it initially looks like an unnecessary expense. The lawyer does not cost the world for the contracts and it does not repeat. He explains the contract components, individual agreements and explains the improvement suggestions. What the client finally signs generally escapes further review.

The expert usually accompanies the entire construction project at defined milestones. This costs more but often helps to prevent even much costlier defects.

And one more thing about the companies:

Yes, most construction companies (whether GÜ / GU / BT) mean no harm to the customer. They have a good reputation (which they want to keep) and do a good job. Most houses are built mostly free of problems and without significant negative events.

But there is also the other kind. And they disguise themselves well. Often, you cannot tell by looking at them that they work poorly and can drive the client into financial ruin. This is very often associated with the destruction of the family. THIS very scenario must be avoided, even if it costs a few hundred more. Preparation is really the key here. It depends on the good selection of the company, which is supplemented by the review of contracts (usually then not a big problem) and construction supervision. That’s how it comes together.