Häuslebauer40
2011-09-30 08:24:12
- #1
632a would have found appropriate recognition in the link.
Construction expert, it is not about whether the submitted payment plan is now favorable to the client or not (which, by the way, I do not think), but rather that it is clearly and unequivocally stated that the general contractor (GU) has to advance payment, unless otherwise agreed by mutual consent.
To refer to your words more extensively once again:
How the GU manages that is not the concern of the client(s). If he lacks liquidity and/or finds it too risky, he must either accept fewer projects or, as I already said, give it up altogether. There is no risk-free business.
And as far as the swords of Damocles are concerned, the proportion of those hovering over private clients in the form of a possible insolvency of the GU is probably significantly higher.
Regardless of the fact that the GU likely has little to no risk with private clients, private construction projects are generally secured by a bank loan. And the GUs certainly do not lack the corresponding securities (financing commitment / bank guarantee / assignment).
With projects commissioned by companies or owners’ associations, this may perhaps be different.
As for the "non-paying customers," the construction companies must slowly come to terms with the fact that even private clients, who usually had little to no knowledge, are now sensitized through media, internet, literature, etc., and expect a proper execution of the work. This should also be the rule and not the exception.
In other words: if the work is carried out according to recognized rules of technology and handed over free of defects, the construction company does not have to fear for its money.
Regarding the removal of the link... well... the argument not only limps, it is practically in a wheelchair...
I hardly believe that Google or any other search engine asks the operator of the website for permission before linking to it...
But well, no problem. Here is the instruction to find the page:
1. Open Google
2. Enter search terms "Bauunternehmen Vorleistungspflicht"
3. Open the second result from the top on the first page (begins with: baurechttipps.....)
Regards
Martin
Construction expert, it is not about whether the submitted payment plan is now favorable to the client or not (which, by the way, I do not think), but rather that it is clearly and unequivocally stated that the general contractor (GU) has to advance payment, unless otherwise agreed by mutual consent.
To refer to your words more extensively once again:
On the other hand, you should think about how a general contractor (GU) is supposed to manage several construction projects (BV) simultaneously when he - always with the sword of Damocles of non-paying customers hanging over him - is supposed to advance up to 30% of the construction sum for all projects?
How the GU manages that is not the concern of the client(s). If he lacks liquidity and/or finds it too risky, he must either accept fewer projects or, as I already said, give it up altogether. There is no risk-free business.
And as far as the swords of Damocles are concerned, the proportion of those hovering over private clients in the form of a possible insolvency of the GU is probably significantly higher.
Regardless of the fact that the GU likely has little to no risk with private clients, private construction projects are generally secured by a bank loan. And the GUs certainly do not lack the corresponding securities (financing commitment / bank guarantee / assignment).
With projects commissioned by companies or owners’ associations, this may perhaps be different.
As for the "non-paying customers," the construction companies must slowly come to terms with the fact that even private clients, who usually had little to no knowledge, are now sensitized through media, internet, literature, etc., and expect a proper execution of the work. This should also be the rule and not the exception.
In other words: if the work is carried out according to recognized rules of technology and handed over free of defects, the construction company does not have to fear for its money.
Regarding the removal of the link... well... the argument not only limps, it is practically in a wheelchair...
I hardly believe that Google or any other search engine asks the operator of the website for permission before linking to it...
But well, no problem. Here is the instruction to find the page:
1. Open Google
2. Enter search terms "Bauunternehmen Vorleistungspflicht"
3. Open the second result from the top on the first page (begins with: baurechttipps.....)
Regards
Martin