Is a letter of intent to purchase binding?

Oh Mr. Morals... Imagine you find the house and sign. Then there’s trouble with the intended handover from the buyer. Or a cheap house is offered to you through an acquaintance, which you just really like. Or or or... With such a volume, which often amounts to at least 20 times the buyer’s annual salary, EVERYTHING has to be right. To me, such a commitment is completely irrelevant.

Because if everything fits, I buy anyway. Or at least want to. I guess everyone here assumes that as well.

Is this just about legalities or sincere and decent behavior? Whoever signs such a letter of intent to purchase and from the outset deliberately leaves the back door open not to buy if anything becomes complicated or if they find something better or... - they should take down their mirrors at home. When a society only judges commitment to a promise legally, it goes downhill. Yes, this is very simple and very generalized - and not from a legal perspective, from which various arguments can be conjured up.

Morally, you may be right, but I can still think of a few good reasons that also ethically justify withdrawing from a declaration. For example, those of the original poster (OP). The OP’s question clearly aims at a legal answer to his question. His described circumstances, namely financing, are morally justifiable. Under normal circumstances, I would say that he can legally and morally rely on Building Code §311b when withdrawing from the contract and has little to fear.

The Building Code §311b has nothing to do with this.

A "Letter of Intent to Purchase" is to be signed, the content of which we do not know. I suspect it is not just a heading. The original poster asks whether this "whatever it is" is binding.

If this is supposed to be a preliminary contract, then it must be assessed completely independently of the land purchase. What exactly is agreed? No, this does not force anyone to buy the property, as this is a separate transaction, but the preliminary contract has consequences in the cases that the seller breaches it, or that the buyer breaches it, or that ideally the purchase comes about.

No, not necessarily. See the current case law. If one commits to the purchase in the letter of intent to purchase and possibly a high contractual penalty or similar is agreed upon, the notarization requirement also applies to the letter of intent under [Grundstück].

No, not necessarily. See the current case law. If one commits to purchase in the letter of intent to purchase and possibly a high contractual penalty or similar is agreed upon, the property law notarization requirement also applies to the letter of intent.

Yes, of course. Because anything else would actually undermine the purpose of notarization. Section 311b of the Building Code was created for this reason, to minimize complex legal disputes from the outset. All contracts relating to real estate (properties) that are not concluded in accordance with §311b are simply void.

Baugesetzbuch §311b has nothing to do with this.

An "intention to purchase declaration" is to be signed, the content of which we do not know. I suspect it consists of more than just a heading. The OP asks whether this "whatever" is binding.

If this is supposed to be a preliminary contract, then it must be assessed completely independently of the real estate purchase. What exactly is agreed? No, this does not obligate anyone to purchase the property, since that is a separate transaction, but the preliminary contract has consequences for cases where the seller breaches it, or the buyer breaches it, or ideally the purchase is completed.

Of course, §311b applies. The subject matter of the contract is a developed property. The OP states this very clearly. We do not know what is written in the contract. Please do not add anything. Based on the data available, it must be assumed that it was agreed that the interested party will acquire the property in the near future. There are, for example, court rulings according to which due reservation fees must be refunded to the interested party because the preliminary contract is not notarized.

This case law can thus also be applied to further contractual agreements.

However, if there is an agreement between the interested party and the seller that the buyer should commission the notary on behalf of the interested party, these costs can possibly actually be claimed from the seller. That would then probably have to be considered independently. The OP does not state this, so it must not be assumed.