House built with a general contractor. Trade submits additional claim

Hello everyone,
I have a question our house was completed over two years ago.
A trade from the former house construction is demanding money for post-adjustments and threatening us.

a) In general, the demand is legitimate, but the invoice is not correct in content.
Part of it was paid to the main contractor or other services paid to the main contractor were not provided and are minimum services.

b) We built via the main contractor. It is true that we discussed changes and adjustments with the trade on behalf of the main contractor. The trade also informed us of prices back then and we discussed the wishes with these prices.

c) We have defects within this trade.

According to a well-known architect, we should point out to the trade that we are not their contract partner at all and that they should please talk to the main contractor. She said we can save ourselves the defects etc. at this point.

Subject to the reservation that we were contract partners, I would now object again and ask for a correction of the invoice including corresponding correction notes from us.
I would also point out the defects and ask for their removal including any painting work that may be required due to the removal and pay for it after the removal.

However, I suspect that this is not correct, we only commissioned additional requests here and did not choose or want the company itself, since it was selected by the main contractor.
For me, this smells a lot like coercion against us…

There are also major defects on the house – in the case of a demand by the main contractor I would commission an expert for a comprehensive defect assessment and report.
The latter was planned anyway for this or at the latest next year.

It is correct that we discussed changes and adjustments with the trade on behalf of the GU.

So also commissioned through the GU and no agreement (written?) between you and the trade? Then let everything run through the general contractor. Please involve a lawyer – basically do not talk to the trade at all, but forward directly. But the same applies to defects. The trade is not a contact person for / to you. "Dear trade, since there was no business relationship and no contractual relationship between us, please contact your client directly. Best regards" Letter done. But as said, please involve the lawyer, as nuances can be decisive here, which we might not know (or you might not be able to assess as a layperson).

From the perspective of the trade and the [GÜs], a separate contractual relationship between the trade and the client can exist for upgrades. I cannot assess to what extent this was recognized by the legislator and the judiciary.

But this was the argumentation of almost all subcontractors in my construction project regarding suddenly changed payment terms (advance payment of >50% of the upgrade amount, remainder at the start of execution which was expected to take place more than a year after the sampling date). I then completely removed these subcontractors.

It is correct that we discussed changes and adjustments with the trade on behalf of the general contractor.

Did you possibly act as a sub-authorized representative of your own authorized representative?
[/QUOTE]
However, the above description sounds rather like this to me.
This is of considerable importance for the whole situation, whether you were clients of a general contractor (and have nothing to do with his subcontractors) or whether you had a general subcontractor and the contractors perceived him as the authorized representative and you as the client, or implicitly through your involvement in agreement changes possibly even you as a civil law partnership (GbR) with the general subcontractor (with each of you being jointly liable for claims arising from the contracts for their deliveries and services). Thus, I would see here, for advice ...

According to a well-known architect, we should point out to the trade that we are not their contractual partner at all and that they should please speak with the general contractor. She said we can skip the defects etc. at this point.

A lawyer instead of the architect would be competent.

Apart from that, what is actually the substance of the problem here:

A trade from the then house construction demands money for subsequent adjustments and threatens us.
a) In principle, the demand is legitimate, but the invoice is not correct in content.
Part of it was paid to the general contractor or other services paid to the general contractor were not rendered and are minimum services.
[...] c) we have defects within this trade.

Do I understand correctly: one of the craftsmen is claiming the part of his remuneration that relates to increases or surcharges for changes regarding tendered items. In doing so, (a) his billing is not correct and the work is (c) not free from (however formally and timely complained about) defects, which you now at least consider setting off against.

This raises questions: were you at that time the complainants of the defects (then I would see you in a position having to explain, now not wanting to be the client or co-client); you state that you paid the general contractor—was he (b) authorized to receive payments to the craftsman, i.e., are these payments to him legally discharging?; do you seriously want to assert set-off claims from you against the general contractor due to quasi “overpaid” reductions or defect withholdings of other trades’ items and raise them against the demanding craftsman???

I can easily imagine that a consultation with your lawyer might lead to the insight that your legal understanding in this matter is completely wrong.

There are reasons why, in my opinion, a highly recommendable, competent specialist lawyer calls her basic course for home builders the “Builder’s Driver’s License.” The cheerfully whistling unawareness of many builders of their legal position and the variety of its consequences provides law students a semester-long seminar topic.

I get the impression here that the payment claim (e.g.,) of the staircase builder for the turned railing is being questioned with the argument that one has already paid a third party and, anyway, the tiler chose the wrong laying pattern, so one actually paid the third party too much overall.

To our special pleasure, such after-the-fact nitpicking comes with the tenor that we should please grant the respective questioners the right, regularly (almost) newbies whose project we have not accompanied so far. A scoundrel who does not trust the story or even hears nightingales stumbling?

I suspect that this is not correct, as we have only commissioned additional requests here and have not selected or wanted the company itself, since it was chosen by the general contractor (GU). To me, this smells very much like coercion against us…

There are also major defects in the house – in response to a demand from the GU, I would commission an expert for a comprehensive assessment of defects and a report. The latter was planned for this year or at the latest next year anyway.

Whether you chose the individual craftsmen yourselves or assigned this to a UFO – pardon, GU – is irrelevant to the craftsman. What matters is whether you were the client or whether you tolerated a related misconception on their part. Defect notifications before acceptance and complaints during the warranty period are two completely different things.

Do I still have to openly say what it smells like to me when the expiry of the warranty period is being "planned," to have an expert list defects (and this is only remembered exactly when a participant lifts the lid of Pandora’s box)?