Network cable defects

Only single sockets were delivered here. In the electrical sampling, only one socket is listed, but I interpreted this to mean that double outlets do not have to be recorded. (Unfortunately, I don't build a house every day!)
The site manager confirmed the defect to me; he had himself forgotten to inform the electrician that doubles were ordered. Since the network cables can no longer be pulled in, the defect remains.

I am not very familiar with this now.
As I read it, it was verbally agreed (and presumably discussed with the site manager) that double sockets should be installed. However, only single sockets were recorded in writing. At least, that’s how I understand this post.
The electrician presumably adhered to the written order.
The site manager verbally confirmed the defect to you.
If the construction company digs in their heels and relies on the written agreement, in my opinion, you have rather poor chances regarding "defect remediation." Whether the site manager’s memory (as an employee of the company) is still as good in such a case, I do not know.

What I mean to say: From my point of view, it comes down to goodwill. The site manager is aware that a mistake was made. But according to the contract, they worked "correctly." Therefore, the site manager will try to resolve this on a goodwill basis (as long as it does not cause a very large effort). If you push too hard (i.e., toward a major effort [breaking open walls, relaying, etc.]), the goodwill attitude could change.

But it may be that I have also misunderstood the initial post or that the contract generally only refers to the "socket" and the type of socket is defined elsewhere.

...From the legal side, the situation is clear. If you have worked diligently and installed the cables according to regulations inside a conduit, an exchange should be possible. If not, then they messed up anyway.

So either remedy with all costs and consequences, or the whole sum, meaning the nearly thousand as a credit.

I am an absolute beginner, as many here know, so I’ll stay out of the conduit/DIN requirement yes/no debate.

Having the right and getting the right are _2_ different things! A judge would always consider proportionality; so please be moderate with statements like "right, the contractor must & co." Throwing _good_ money _after_ bad should not be the point of the exercise!

I see 2 practical solutions here:

Either the cable was laid in the conduit, then rework – a defect only after handover! – is indeed annoying as well as frustrating for the contractor, but feasible. Or the client and contractor agree on a credit. As can be seen in the washbasin example, the contractor will probably be frugal with his surpluses.

He can hardly credit installation, since it already occurred with the conduit; sharing the "fun" fifty-fifty is thus out; also, since distribution costs are included. I would bet that a credit in the area of €300.00 +/- will emerge.

Construction expert on the go

Hello,

Construction expert, you have a lot of experience in the construction industry. So when I read your assessment here,

I am an absolute beginner, as many know here, so I stay out of the question of empty conduit/DIN requirement yes/no.

Being right and getting justice are _2_ different things! A judge would always consider proportionality; so please take it easy with statements like "right, main contractor must & co." Throwing _good_ money after _bad_ should not be the point!

I see 2 practical solutions here:

Either the cable was laid in the empty conduit, then rework - a defect only after handover! - is annoying for the main contractor, but doable. Or the project owner and main contractor agree on a credit note. As can be seen from the washbasin example, the main contractor will likely be thrifty with his surpluses.

Hardly any credit can be given for installation; that was done anyway with the empty conduit; sharing the "fun" half and half is therefore out; also, because sales costs are included. I would bet that a credit note in the area of €300.00 +/- will come about.

I assume that there is experience behind this. But at the same time, I am really amazed and shocked by the obvious practices "on the construction site."

What you write comes down to the following: You order a car with electric windows. The manufacturer is too lazy / too stupid / too careless to install them and just installs manual ones. And you are supposed to accept the manual ones and even pay for them? And the manufacturer/main contractor gets away with that in court?????? Are you serious?

If that is really common (given your experience, I assume it is) it really confirms every stupid cliché about the construction industry.

Maybe I have a different perspective due to my project experience from industry, but for us it is customary that the contract is fulfilled. Without ifs and buts! And if we forget/mess up something on a project, it is corrected afterwards. And yes, we have already torn down and rebuilt half a plant for such things.

Best regards,

Andreas

In the electrical sampling, only one socket is listed, but I interpreted this to mean that double outlets do not have to be recorded.

..., but with us it is customary that the contract is fulfilled. No ifs or buts! And if we forget/mess something up on a project, it is corrected.

As I wrote above - I can only judge this with difficulty. But as the OP wrote it, the contract only lists one socket and not a double socket. He assumed that it was the double socket he wanted (and discussed).

But if ONE socket is in the contract, then the contract would be fulfilled. (Among businessmen, oral agreements are also considered contracts - but in private vs. business only the written ones count, if I am not mistaken). This is not meant to say that the housebuilding company has no understanding and does not budge - after all, this business is partly based on recommendations. But if they come with the sledgehammer method (YOU MUST tear up and re-lay), then it can also happen that the company thinks in terms of effort and benefit and simply turns away.

let's wait and see, the OP should report back on what exactly is stated in the contract and what else was agreed upon

Yep, it still needs to be clarified exactly what is stated in any contracts.

Breaking open the wall only comes into play if the contractor has not installed the cables in empty conduits. Installing them in empty conduits is the recognized state of the art according to DIN. If he hasn’t done that and does not have written approval from the builder, he has a problem. And that is then independent of the number of connections. LAN cables belong in empty conduits and are not to be permanently embedded!

Best regards,

Andreas