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

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, through inventory holding to minimize risk, the supplier would have had a way to avert it. Based on the excerpts from the contract, the GU cannot make a legitimate claim. However, something on this 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 receiving better performance at the end increases. If you remain uncompromising on a position at the first problem and tacitly assume greedy intentions of the other party, the project will take a different course — the risk of stress and poor quality increases. I find that pragmatic! Good luck.

That may be so, and that is definitely the goal of every builder! No one wants a house that is doomed to fail from the very start. Ultimately, it also always depends on how "smart" you chose the GU. By that, I mean: possibly also checking solvency beforehand — checked references and so on and so forth... If it really is the right GU, the GU should be the last one to pass the costs on to the builder, but rather vouch for it themselves and try to "negotiate" with their supplier (trade + manufacturer beforehand). I see it in our company: price increases in the steel sector of over 15%. We will NOT implement any price increases this year — this is ultimately also a signal to the customer — it shows high solvency and a healthy company. Splitting €10,000 50/50 hurts the builder MUCH more than the GU. So for me, 50/50 would never be a satisfactory solution?? This must be made dependent on the equity capital, etc., behind it. €10,000 doesn’t bother the GU at all — for the builder, it is a lot of money... Personally — and that’s how I would act if I were in this situation — I simply do not see why I should bear the entrepreneurial risk. Ultimately, the GU can always raise their base price when submitting an offer. One signs then, the other does not... But just because the market does not cooperate, I cannot simply shift my entire risk (or 50/50) onto the builder. That is by far the easiest option for the GU :D As I said, if after the fact we are talking about €2,000, you can still consider it, if your GU is, for example, a "********", nonetheless I would do everything possible to get my house with €0.00 additional costs. And let’s be honest: if the GU is located nearby, or operates regionally and was "smartly" chosen, reputation is much, much more important than letting go of €10,000. You just have to shout loud enough, then you very often get what you want — and there is a very clear reason for that: 90% of builders would "give in" in this case :D

In the end, the one who ends up stupid is always the customer.

Now ask yourself why. I’d say "because he is the stupid one." The entrepreneurs do this professionally. The customer is 90% an amateur.

It starts with complaining about price increases and ends with a lot of additional claims. Anyone who doesn't show from the start that he won't be taken for a ride is a victim.

The announcement of additional costs is intended for nothing else. Let’s see what happens, even if I have no claim. That’s what you call trapping the stupid. Or does the OP already have the notification of the additional costs in writing?

Guess how many additional cost notifications I have written, even though I knew exactly they were unjustified. Same with claims.

Now ask yourself why. I’d say "because he is the fool." The entrepreneurs do this professionally. The customer is 90% an amateur.

It starts with complaining about price increases and ends with lots of additional claims. Anyone who doesn’t show from the start that he won’t be taken for a ride is a victim.

What else is the announcement of the additional costs supposed to do? Let’s see what happens, even if I have no claim. That’s what you call fooling around. Or has the OP already received the written notification of the additional costs?

Guess how many notifications of additional costs I have already written, even though I knew exactly they were unjustified. Same with the additional claims.

That is exactly the statement I also wanted to "get across" here...

Total nonsense to think that you are not "in the right" here because of the strong position of a company.

Believe me, even I have often "proven" privately that this is not the case... You just have to defend yourself and not let everything be done to you.

The VW diesel scandal is the best example. I know private plaintiffs with run-of-the-mill lawyers who have won in court – because the whole thing from VW simply was not lawful. Ultimately, however, 99% give up and settle with cheap answers.

What I want to say with this: Don’t put up with everything... Total nonsense to think that you are just the "little guy".


But what I keep thinking: Many, many people work in the private sector – certainly some building owners as well. They should know exactly how all this works, right? :D

If we were to end up in such a situation, I would, for example, suggest splitting the amount the general contractor names in half. 50/50 because he actually has no claim to it, but this shows goodwill and in the best case, everyone is satisfied.

The general contractor will be happy. You won’t. So at least one person is dissatisfied.

Do you notice something?

What I keep thinking is: There are so many people working in the private sector - certainly some building owners as well. So one should know exactly how all this works? :D

Very few building owners are specialists. Even the internet (forum) doesn't really help with that.

I believe it always depends on the situation when it makes sense to stand firm and when a concession is appropriate. We are talking here about amounts that will probably be in the four-digit range. Which, in house construction, is not the be-all and end-all. Don't get me wrong, I am not against giving something away. But insisting on paying 0.0 is nonsense in my eyes, because although it is a fixed price, it is based on assumptions that do not always occur, and thus additional costs can arise. Example: An excavation of 40cm for the foundation is agreed upon. But now the soil is only really load-bearing at a depth of 50cm. At the latest now, additional costs arise because work has to be done that is not covered by the contract, and if I had always played the tough guy regarding covering costs before, he will recover his money at the latest now. I can't even compare the prices for the extra excavation and the bringing in of additional material because these items were never listed separately for me.

I think you have to approach this with a bit of tact and not immediately insist on your rights.