On Wednesday we are looking for one of 10 plots - Sign?

Well, what 11ant described would probably be the worst-case scenario and applies equally to all GUs where you buy turnkey...

I only referred to what several previous speakers touched on: precisely this aspect that such an all-at-the-end payment may sound like a safer sales argument, but in fact is rather less secure.

My point was simply that with the late payment date you are not much better or worse protected than with the legally prescribed system of progress payments according to construction progress.

Exactly. Although the legally prescribed system does not contradict this provider’s model. It will still be possible next year, it is just not the ultimate wisdom.

So you can’t protect yourself. Any advice?

Yes, you can. The advice is simply to demand a completion guarantee – gladly in addition to this payment model. Whenever you already own the plot where in the worst case a construction progress ruin might stand later, you should block all possible loopholes to prevent this worst-case scenario. This provider’s payment model is not fundamentally bad – you just must not confuse it with a completion guarantee, because it is not that. And because it is not, you really don’t get anything from it. These are single tranches of financed money that you draw later – nothing more. And on the provider’s side maybe the speculation that you confuse it with a completion guarantee.

I don’t know if that is correct. Let’s construct. I have 600 sqm of own land and commission Scanhaus Marlow to build a prefabricated house on it. They also follow the model build first, then pay. Assuming the walls are standing, the roof is half covered, nothing else finished. Inside bare, no heating, no screed, blah blah... Scanhaus quits. Their stuff is now on my land. Because it is still their stuff. I haven’t paid anything, haven’t accepted anything. I don’t have to pay anything before it is finished. I could, of course, now say to the insolvency administrator that I would be willing, let’s say for payment of 60 thousand, to buy the torso as it is. Otherwise, he should remove his stuff from my land. Let him decide.... That’s how I see it. But the contract must state that the delivered goods remain the property of the supplier until payment and that payment takes place, let’s say, after completion, acceptance, and final invoice, which would then also be linked to possession and ownership transfer. Karsten

Unfortunately, you see this too simply. In this case, the provider is released from their obligation to perform under the contract due to the impossibility of performance, and the previous services are calculated based on their value and must then be paid. Because you as the client are involved in the contractual agreement, the timing of the payment is only a part of the same regulation.

However, you have the advantage that you only have to objectively pay for services that actually hold value. In a regular payment plan based on construction progress, the amount already paid is usually higher than the actual construction performance.

Fuchur. I’m not paying that. The insolvency administrator can come up with whatever calculations. Nada. A house was ordered, not a torso. A house is paid for, the torso at best out of courtesy at a good rate. Let him take that stuff away from there. For example, a construction project with 50 residential units here. The developer went bankrupt. The principle was also to buy and pay only when finished. To my knowledge, no buyer has paid for their half-finished apartment. The bank handed the entire property over to someone else, who got it cheaply, finished building it, operated it as a rental housing complex for a few years, and then sold it for a high price. Karsten

Once again "refreshing legal opinions" here....

The sole motivation of the construction company for the clause "payment of 100% only after handover of the keys" is the practically reversed application:

Without 100% payment, there are simply no keys!

So they do not want to follow the usual 5% retention due to possible defects, the entire acceptance function is bypassed. The construction company regularly has deeper pockets and can wait a few months until handover.

Note: The remuneration for work is due according to the law on real estate. AFTER the ACCEPTANCE (declaration) regarding the (construction) work.

For good reason, as the following extreme case shows: The construction company hands over the keys – but unfortunately the house is missing – or more realistically, it is botched, i.e. not ready for acceptance due to serious defects. According to your clause, 400,000 EUR would be due, acceptance complaints not possible, etc. …(the clause is of course not effective, that much can be revealed...).

And insolvency proceedings are of course NOT a reason for impossibility and initially have no effect on the contractual relationship, rather the insolvency administrator – and only the insolvency administrator – has a right of choice whether to perform or not, § 103 InsO.

Please excuse my superficially formulated response, I did not intend to elaborate legally complete derivations where there apparently are fundamental difficulties in understanding. The result presented is the same. The entrepreneur DOES NOT have to complete and sees money for the partial services.