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

Now I have to ask quite naively. What kind of funding would still be available? We are most likely building a 40+ house and due to the already concluded loan agreement with the Sparkasse, only a grant option that no longer exists is possible.

What could we do wrong again by giving up?

I would talk to the general contractor, my goal would be to mutually remove the clause and leave the contract unaffected and proceed with construction. Or Those who rely on the funding might have a cheaper exit to limit the damage

Yes, that is exactly what I meant with protecting the builder. Here there seem to be some who fully relied on the funding demand and based their financing on it. If the funding falls through, several tens of thousands of euros may be missing, causing the entire financing to fail. It cannot get worse. Construction contract signed, financing fails. In my opinion, this clause should protect against that. That now speculators and greedy companies are massively profiting under the guise of the war is a matter of the market and not politics.

To protect builders, a right of withdrawal would be sufficient. The FAQ (#1007) justifies this differently with the mandatory cancellation: Through this contract design, the necessary incentive effect of the subsidy is demonstrated. It becomes clear that the planned measure is to be carried out and the contract is to apply only in the case of a subsidy

To protect builders, a right of withdrawal would be sufficient. The FAQ (#1007) justifies this differently with the mandatory cancellation:

Through this contract design, the necessary incentive effect of the funding is demonstrated. It becomes apparent that the planned measure is to be carried out and the contract is to apply only in the case of funding

But the right of withdrawal probably doesn't work if you wanted to preserve the chance of funding. That was the point after all. First funding, then building contract. How could this have been solved legally in another way?

Now I have to ask very stupidly. What kind of funding would still be available? We are most likely building a 40+ house and due to the already completed loan agreement with the Sparkasse, only a grant option is possible that no longer exists.

What could we possibly do wrong again by waiving it?

Can anyone still help here? If we now sign the "waiver of conditions" (which clearly states: "a permanent loss of funding according to the Building Energy Act"), what are we possibly giving up on? Is there any funding? I thought not...

But the right of withdrawal probably does not work if you wanted to preserve the chance of funding. That was the point. First funding, then building yield. How could one have solved that legally otherwise?

I have now referred here to Joedreck, who wanted to interpret the clause as protection for the builder. It definitely was not that, and - as said on the last pages - I also think that the whole construction set a nasty trap for builders.