Probably the planning is lacking. If no detailed execution planning is available for such details as Snowy described, it is also "too late" for the supervisor.
There was a plan, but the carpenter messed it up ... who will find a solution for it now is questionable, and since I am the client and have the problem, I tried to solve it ... Monday we’ll clarify with the supervisor what we are going to do ...
BTW there is no vapor barrier foil either .... that is the second problem of this roof and why I won’t pay another cent
A defect mainly exists in individual contracting when the ordered scope deviates. However, given the history of this thread, it becomes difficult to prove the contractually owed scope of the carpenter’s trade. Was the vapor barrier foil even specified/commissioned/part of the contract?
That is unfortunately incorrect. As a layperson, you do not have to commission technical requirements separately. The craftsman must work properly and according to aRdT, no matter what is stated in the offer. It is simply the law!
Unfortunately, that is incorrect. As a layperson, you do not have to separately commission technical requirements. The craftsman must work professionally and according to the state of the art, regardless of what is stated in the offer. That is simply the law!
Well, if I commission a roof without, for example, a vapor barrier, because the vapor barrier is installed by myself or by another trade, that does not necessarily mean that a deviation from the state of the art here constitutes a defect. Delivered as ordered.
Then it would have to be in writing somewhere that you want to deviate from it on purpose ....
For our balcony doors without a threshold, for example, it explicitly states that they are not rainproof like this and we are explicitly informed that they are doing this expressly at our request and are thus off the hook if we should complain one day that the parquet gets wet ...