Voki1
2015-04-09 12:07:49
- #1
"pacta sunt servanda" = Agreements must be kept. This also applies, by the way, when you have agreed to something disadvantageous for yourself.
This is where it already gets tricky. Without now wagging a finger: why do you sign such a contract if the actual agreement is not supposed to be included and instead another agreement is written down? The discussion about the wording change alone should have theoretically "jumped right in your face". Well then, the financing reservation is apparently what was agreed upon in the contract.
If it happened as you described here, then you must also provide reliable evidence for it. Presumably, the seller AND the intermediary will claim the exact opposite, which could be problematic if you cannot prove your version.
That is true as well. But he only means the financing reservation, even if he explained it somewhat indirectly.
May I ask why you then concluded a contract for the construction of a residential house? Were you offered some kind of "bargain price" or was there noticeable pressure to conclude this contract? How did it happen?
Understandable.
Well, if the intermediary can conclude a contract, then many an "agreement" may have been confirmed verbally, which cannot be found in writing anymore and is later denied. This is actually quite common.
I can somehow even understand that. Of course, it also depends somewhat on the expenses and efforts that the contractor has already had to cover. I find the second sentence with the credit nicely formulated, especially since there probably would be no situation arising from enforcing the first sentence that would lead to the second. In any case, the mutual trust probably cannot be restored to the extent that such a contractual constellation could happen again.
I would certainly immediately agree with that. Sentence 1 always applies, and sentence 2 here as well, with a rather prompt recommendation for implementation. Do not write anything more yourself and do not call anymore either. Go directly to a lawyer and confront appropriately. In many cases, involving a lawyer is the key to a settlement here.
According to the house seller or intermediary from the provider, we could get out of the contract if we do not find a property by the date specified in the contract. However, he did not want to have "property reservation" in the contract. Instead, the contract contains "financing reservation".
This is where it already gets tricky. Without now wagging a finger: why do you sign such a contract if the actual agreement is not supposed to be included and instead another agreement is written down? The discussion about the wording change alone should have theoretically "jumped right in your face". Well then, the financing reservation is apparently what was agreed upon in the contract.
If it happened as you described here, then you must also provide reliable evidence for it. Presumably, the seller AND the intermediary will claim the exact opposite, which could be problematic if you cannot prove your version.
The seller said at the time that this is customary in the industry.
That is true as well. But he only means the financing reservation, even if he explained it somewhat indirectly.
The point is, we had not found a property of our choice (after 6 months of searching).
May I ask why you then concluded a contract for the construction of a residential house? Were you offered some kind of "bargain price" or was there noticeable pressure to conclude this contract? How did it happen?
The provider’s headquarters accused us of trying to portray the seller as a liar.
Understandable.
They said he could not have said that we can simply get out of the contract if we do not find a property by the said date.
Well, if the intermediary can conclude a contract, then many an "agreement" may have been confirmed verbally, which cannot be found in writing anymore and is later denied. This is actually quite common.
They insist on their compensation of 20,000 euros! They also said that if we want to build with them in the future, the 20,000 euros will be credited to us.
I can somehow even understand that. Of course, it also depends somewhat on the expenses and efforts that the contractor has already had to cover. I find the second sentence with the credit nicely formulated, especially since there probably would be no situation arising from enforcing the first sentence that would lead to the second. In any case, the mutual trust probably cannot be restored to the extent that such a contractual constellation could happen again.
Therefore, one should always check (have checked) very carefully what one signs. Only a lawyer can help here.
I would certainly immediately agree with that. Sentence 1 always applies, and sentence 2 here as well, with a rather prompt recommendation for implementation. Do not write anything more yourself and do not call anymore either. Go directly to a lawyer and confront appropriately. In many cases, involving a lawyer is the key to a settlement here.