Heat pump no longer available - legal question

Hello,


I have a basic question about the legal side, maybe someone knows about it.


We are building a kit house; we are getting the shell from the house company and all the home technology from a partner company. Last year, we signed a contract for a Viessmann heat pump, photovoltaic system with storage, and ventilation. We want to join the Viessmann community and therefore need 3 devices. Since we have a ground-source heat pump, you can quite easily cool the house with it; the additional component is integrated into the heat pump and costs about €1000 extra, and that’s exactly the part in question now.


Our home technician recently informed us that Viessmann suddenly changed its devices without notice as of 01.04. You can no longer get this extra component integrated into the heat pump for €1000 extra but only as an external component for €3000 extra. Now our technician said that Waterkotte is the only manufacturer where this component is still integrated into the heat pump at a fair price. At first, that didn’t bother me. He would then install a Waterkotte heat pump for us, and with ventilation, storage, and photovoltaic, we would still have 3 devices for the Viessmann community.


At home, however, I now think differently. First, we were told that Waterkotte has very poor service, which is why the company switched to Viessmann a few years ago, and second, all Viessmann devices are supposed to communicate with each other. I could control ventilation and heating all from one device and wouldn’t have to change settings on two devices.


Well, long story short. What does this look like legally now? I signed a contract for a Viessmann heat pump with cooling; now the product no longer exists in that form. If I absolutely want to stay with Viessmann, do I have to pay the €2000 difference myself, or is this the problem of the home technology company?

Depends on how the contract is worded. If it says something like comparable device, you are out of luck. So first read carefully. Then seek a conversation, document everything in writing... Depending on the outcome, you have to decide how to proceed. So what exactly does it say? Usually it comes down to cost sharing anyway.

The contract explicitly concerns this one device from Viessmann. There are also no general terms and conditions included.

We don’t necessarily need the cooling... but I’m also a bit stubborn with the company. We have also signed the offer for the electrical work there, but now we want to do about 80% of it ourselves since my cousin is an electrician. This was rejected because we signed a contract and if we do not comply, we have to pay a contractual penalty. Therefore, I am not willing to make many concessions to the company.

The question now is that the company has to deliver what is stated in the contract. But it cannot because Viessmann has discontinued the product line. Who is now responsible for the additional effort?

If it were up to me, I would say, then without cooling but I want a €2,000 discount or I may withdraw from the electrical contract without costs. I really don’t want to run to a lawyer and get advice there. We hardly have any time and don’t have money anyway :p

Maybe someone here has knowledge about contracts and stuff…

Oh dear, when it starts like this, you really look forward to the collaboration... Difficult topic. Have you done any research yourself to see if what they are saying is even true? What's the name of the device?

I do think it is true. He said he has 30 customers he now has to explain this to and is apparently in contact with his Viessmann representative to find a solution.

It is the Viessmann Vitocal 333 G

This is supposed to be very recent since 01.04...

The background of my question is simply that when you enter the device on Google, you can buy it - with an integrated cooling module for €8000.. so why shouldn't the company be able to do that?