Inspection of detailed drawings before signing the contract for house purchase

The notary is moreover obligated to both parties. Exploitation is thus excluded

theoretically yes

How was that again with the Berlin "midnight notaries"?

But that there shouldn’t be any details about the contract to be signed beforehand, I just can’t understand - sh*tty seller’s market...

In the end, it doesn't matter which notary confirms the personal details; that's all there is to it

That is completely wrong. The notary reads the purchase contract aloud during the notarization and points out (if done correctly) any imbalances. He ensures that the parties have understood the content and answers all legal questions related to the wording. This distinguishes notarization from certification, in which only the personal details are confirmed.

I am just surprised that the purchase contract is from a notary who really isn’t just around the corner.

Often, the notary and the seller "know" each other, especially when a larger plot is to be reduced and the entire process is to be handled by a single notary because the seller wants it that way. Basically, it doesn’t matter at all which notary handles the process.

But that there should be no details about the contract beforehand, which one is supposed to sign, I can’t understand—damn seller’s market…

And thus the circle closes. That’s how market economy works. If the seller can find many buyers, he will prefer the one from whom he can get a possible maximum. But that also refers to the complexity of the buyer. Teachers, lawyers, and other "types" sometimes have it harder because they simply ask too many (good) (and bad) questions. During the course of the construction project, they are simply more difficult than those who remain silent about everything or are satisfied with very superficial answers.

For me, it applies: I don’t sign anything I don’t understand or whose implications I cannot grasp. If the seller doesn’t want to be more concrete and clear, then there is no contract with me, and I always emphasize that I diligently spread this fact verbally and in writing—to those who want to know, but also to those who don’t care.

So if he were on the path to cheat or take advantage, he should think that over well during the course of the talks. The worst case would be: no contract and still tell everyone about it.

Buyers also have a good argument: money and transaction security. Then one more property is sold, and the preceding talks were not just costs.

Don’t be intimidated, but negotiate fairly and completely. If you have a bad feeling, then don’t make the contract, but look elsewhere.

That is completely wrong. The notary reads the purchase contract aloud during the notarization and points out (if done correctly) any imbalances. He ensures that the parties have understood the content and answers all legal questions related to the wording. This distinguishes notarization from certification, in which only the personal details are confirmed.

I wrote something similar - albeit in shortened form:

The notary is furthermore obligated to both parties. Being taken advantage of is therefore excluded

A small side note: if the notary only explains the contents of the contract at the notary appointment, it is likely that the signature will not be given; there is simply not enough time. For this reason, the 14-day period during which the buyer can review the preliminary draft should really be used to clarify the wording. The notary is also available for that.

Rhenish regards

The notary is furthermore obligated to both parties. An exploitation is therefore excluded

You have a smiley afterwards, at least, but it should still be made clear once again that exploitation of one party can of course also happen with a notarized contract! But if all details are not clear before signing, then in my opinion the question does not even arise. Because then there will be no signature. There are also reputable builders/developers/sellers. Otherwise, the submitted contract must be checked before signing: by an expert whom you have commissioned and paid yourself (if you do not know anyone ...).

Good evening,

You have a smiley behind it, at least,

Yes, regrettably I put a smiley.

nevertheless it should be made crystal clear here that disadvantaging one party can of course also happen with a notarized contract!

No!

And if a notary should once have a weak moment – I could imagine that exclusively financial incentives could shake him – then that should be relatively easy to prove. Moreover, this notary would probably have been active in this profession for the shortest time … is it worth it?

"I. Preservation of the independence and impartiality of the notary
1.1. The notary is an impartial legal advisor and caretaker of all parties involved.

1.2. The notary must also maintain impartiality when advising and drafting as well as preparing opinions upon a unilateral request. The same applies to the legally permissible representation of a party in proceedings, in particular in land registry and registry matters, in inheritance certificate proceedings, in real estate transfer tax, inheritance and gift tax matters as well as in approval procedures before authorities and courts.

..............

Source: Federal Chamber of Notaries

Best regards from the Rhineland

Dear construction expert, you are interpreting this incorrectly.

Of course, unfavorable contracts are suitable for agreements before any notary. The notary is not a party, therefore not a party to the visibly disadvantaged one. However, his task is to point out such unfavorable situations and to make the disadvantage apparent. If, nonetheless, the contract is to be signed, he will proceed with its execution.

His task therefore consists in advising the parties to the certification. This includes answering legal questions, especially regarding the legal consequences of the contract to be concluded.

One can very well conclude a contract unfavorable to oneself, and this happens daily. Mainly when the buyers have a strong desire to purchase and are closed to well-intentioned advice. Also when there is uncertainty in the negotiation process (which is mostly the case) and the "normal" persons no longer dare to ask questions during the certification appointment, not to mention refusal to sign.

For this reason, the notary must grant the parties two weeks for review. This time is precisely meant to allow inexperienced parties to follow up with questions BEFORE the appointment and not to put them into the pressured signing situation if a draft contains clear disadvantages.

Basically, quite simple.