Impudence wins, dispute over pre-emption right within contemplation period

Yes, but not to private individuals – I am familiar with this regarding the city (I mean, they almost always have it), whereby you get a corresponding confirmation from those offices BEFORE the notarial agreement.

At least that’s how it happened with us...

Also with private individuals; I have just come across that in another matter. A prior confirmation is not provided for in the administrative apparatus. The declaration is only given upon presentation of the signed notarial agreement and only addressed to the notary.

Rhenish greetings

Here already - fortunately.

Although something like that would "only" be annoying - but the clause with the 5% opens doors wide. For me, it is unacceptable to leave something like that in the contract, because only morality could then stop a person, otherwise one would be almost stupid not to grab the money.

18k is of course a big deal and painful. Without breaking data protection, are there no problems with the financing because of it?

If the customers have already signed a financing agreement, it is a classic case. In the worst case, the property is lost, you have financing, and have to pay a prepayment penalty or quickly offer the bank an alternative.

Unfortunately, there are no "do-gooders" but only vultures thanks to the construction boom.

Without violating data protection, there are no problems with financing as a result?

No. Rhineland regards

who would actually bear all the costs in the case of a reversal of the purchase contract? that would have to be somehow included in the right of first refusal. if it falls back on the beneficiary of the right of first refusal, one could also withdraw from the purchase contract and the other would be left with the property. if he uses the same trick again, sue him properly.

what is the point of the right of first refusal with compensation of 5% at all? what is it even designed for? as already written above, the beneficiary of the right of first refusal MUST compulsorily choose this option, simply because he gets 5% (here at least €18,000) for free.

In the commercial sector, it is almost common for everyone to hold out their hand once in a while.

In the private sector, this is rather rare, although the question here will be whether the pre-emptive right holder can actually afford to purchase the property or if he is just gambling (I suspect the latter, since a semi-detached house as an investment property generally yields a lousy return).

If I had no financing, I would probably gamble and withdraw from the purchase contract, since then the pre-emptive right holder MUST exercise his right.