KfW BEG funding stopped 261, 262, 263, 264, 461, 463, 464

Our home builder just informed us that he has to terminate the contract with us because the "resolving condition" was triggered. And that only because the subsidy amount was halved. Now we can conclude a new one – of course under current conditions – about 30k euros more. Presumably, some home builders are popping corks right now because they can get out of the (un)favorable old contracts.

Our home builder just informed us that he has to terminate the contract with us because the "resolutory condition" has been triggered. And that only because the subsidy amount was halved. Now we can conclude a new one – of course under current conditions – about 30k euros more. Presumably, some home builders are popping corks right now because they can get out of the (un)favorable old contracts.

Huh? Because your subsidy was halved? What does that have to do with the home builder?

Contracts for consulting and planning services concluded before the application date do not count as the start of the project. However, the conclusion of supply and service contracts for the construction work to be funded before the application date constitutes the start of the project and generally prevents funding.

In subsidy law, it is recognized that a suspensive or resolutive condition in supply and service contracts prevents the occurrence of a funding-preclusive project start with regard to the granting of funding. This applies regardless of when these contracts were concluded, for example, also for supply and service contracts concluded as early as 2020 if they contained a suspensive or resolutive condition regarding the granting of funding under the BEG or one of the predecessor programs of the BEG (EBS programs, MAP, APEE or HZO).

However, a right of withdrawal is not sufficient for this. It must be a suspensive or resolutive condition. The difference from a right of withdrawal (which can be exercised but does not have to be) is that the suspensive or resolutive condition automatically takes effect when the condition occurs. This then clearly documents that these supply and service contracts are concluded only on the condition that funding is granted. This contractual arrangement demonstrates the necessary incentive effect of the funding. It thus becomes evident that the planned measure will only be carried out and the contract will only apply if funding is granted. If the funding is denied, the contracting parties cannot, as in the case of a right of withdrawal, decide to adhere to the contract, since it becomes ineffective. They can only conclude a new contract.

The house builder (prefabricated house) therefore had to include this "triggering condition" in the contract to ensure KFW funding.