Is the price increase for the general contractor after signing due to raw material shortages lawful?

Ultimately, the main contractor does not agree on fixed prices with the individual trades. The price increase is simply passed on from the carpenter to the main contractor. Since the two companies want to continue working together in the future, it is usually split 50/50 or similar, depending on how "lenient" the main contractor or the carpenter is in that case.

In the end, the main contractor currently has less margin on all the houses—period. As I said, unless there is a clause in the contract, I would not pay an extra €2,500 or similar—why would I? Then the main contractor simply earns less on my house. He will have to calculate his future offers more sharply to recoup the lower profit on the current construction projects.

Entrepreneurial risk....

Not always. Our main contractor fixes the prices with his regular suppliers after the client’s approval. For example, we gave our approval in October 2020. The building application was submitted in December. Due to the conversion of the plot and the "quick" processing by the forestry authority, construction will only start at the end of July or August 2021. The main contractor confirmed again last week that the prices will remain valid until the house is completed.

Ultimately, in the current phase, almost every main contractor will try to squeeze the maximum out of the client.

This is lesson 1 of successful companies. By the way, it has always been like this. However, this is not about the client but about project management with profit.

I also agree that I don't want to get into a tussle with the general contractor over these sums. But I also don't want to show any willingness to bear these costs completely! As mentioned at the beginning, this is not a company that builds multiple houses per year. And already being at odds before construction even starts certainly doesn't help that my house is built with attention to detail :D Thanks a lot for all these good answers!

I also see it that way that I don't want to quarrel with the general contractor (GU) over these amounts now. But I also don't want to show any willingness to bear these costs completely! As mentioned at the beginning, it is not a company that builds dozens of houses a year. And being at each other's throats even before construction begins certainly does not contribute to my house being built with attention to detail :D Thanks a lot for all these good answers!

If we were to find ourselves in such a situation, I would, for example, propose to meet halfway of the amount the GU names. 50/50 because he actually has no claim to it, but you show good will with it and ideally everyone is satisfied.

No, it is not. The contract is legally binding. The general contractor MUST build the house for you at this price. If insolvency occurs, we are dealing with a completely different case – no question. Besides, he MUST also build my house, that’s why the contract was concluded. Only insolvency releases him from this contract. You have to be much "tougher" as a client. Ultimately, in the current phase, pretty much every general contractor will try to squeeze the maximum out of the client.

As the saying goes: "Having the right and getting the right are two different things." I have been witnessing the development as a financier for over 20 years. And I can tell you that as a consumer you can only lose if you exclusively play the "strong man." Let me ask you directly. What do you do if the general contractor simply does not build or only sporadically appears at the construction site? Then you are the tough guy and complain?! And? What actually happens? You keep waiting for your house. You get help from a lawyer – but you still wait for the house. The lawyer writes to the general contractor for the 37th time. And? He simply does not deliver. And you are still waiting in your house. Because it’s not only the general contractor, it’s also his subs who simply no longer come because the general contractor cannot accept their increased prices either. He also has contracts – and as you say, one has to stay tough. But in the end, the fool is always the customer. We don’t see such things daily at our company, but very regularly. What all happens...

The contractual exclusion criteria do not apply. With the fixed price, the supplier assumes the price risk. Price increases are not force majeure. This would imply inevitability. For example, by holding inventory to minimize risk, the supplier would have had a way to avert it. Based on the text excerpts from the contract, the GU cannot make a justified claim. However, something may be stated elsewhere in the contract. I find the advice from to see this pragmatically very good. If you solve a problem together at the beginning, the likelihood of getting better performance in the end increases. If you remain irreconcilable at the first problem and implicitly ascribe greedy intentions to the other party, the project will take a different course – the risk of stress and lack of quality increases.

And being at each other's throats before construction even starts surely does not contribute to my house being built with attention to detail :D

I find that pragmatic! Good luck.