Bauexperte
2013-12-23 09:39:55
- #1
Hello construction helper,
That is also not necessary; the language of the Internet is the informal "Du". If you want to contribute here on the HBF—which is certainly an enrichment for the users here—you should learn to accept that.
It is not fundamentally wrong; I did not claim that either. However, in my opinion, it was formulated ambiguously, which is why I reacted. For the layperson reading here, the bottom line remains that "only" according to VOB/B does a reversal of the burden of proof take place. Essentially, the consequences of acceptance outlined apply as with the contract under the Construction Code.
That could be argued at length; however, it is not productive here, as can be seen from "Hilarias'" response. This user is already unable to understand the §§, so it is helpful to present the matters in the forum in a way understandable to laypeople.
Anything else would have surprised me as well
Why should I do that or assume it? I have read too little from you so far to be able to evaluate that, even remotely, at this time.
I also wish to have had one.
Rhenish greetings
1. I do not remember having offered you the informal "Du" and would politely ask you to continue using the formal "Sie" in addressing me until this point.
That is also not necessary; the language of the Internet is the informal "Du". If you want to contribute here on the HBF—which is certainly an enrichment for the users here—you should learn to accept that.
2. I merely pointed out that depending on the phase of contract execution one is in, in the case of the agreed VOB/B, different paragraphs serve as the basis for a notice of defects, and that after acceptance the burden of proof reverses. You confirmed this in your reply, so I cannot see what was wrong with my statement.
It is not fundamentally wrong; I did not claim that either. However, in my opinion, it was formulated ambiguously, which is why I reacted. For the layperson reading here, the bottom line remains that "only" according to VOB/B does a reversal of the burden of proof take place. Essentially, the consequences of acceptance outlined apply as with the contract under the Construction Code.
5. You also know that merely handing over the VOB/B for acknowledgment and signing a receipt confirmation by no means suffices for a valid agreement of these general terms and conditions. Although this creates the appearance that it is so, there are differing opinions in the literature. As with all general terms and conditions, the person who makes the terms the basis of the contract is also liable for them.
That could be argued at length; however, it is not productive here, as can be seen from "Hilarias'" response. This user is already unable to understand the §§, so it is helpful to present the matters in the forum in a way understandable to laypeople.
6. I am a great supporter of VOB/B and from my experience of the past 25 years in construction, I only know one commercial client who did not want to agree on the VOB/ but exclusively wanted the provisions of the Construction Code to apply.
Anything else would have surprised me as well
... However, if you consider my professional statements unqualified, of course you have the right to do so. I cannot and do not want to influence this assessment.
Why should I do that or assume it? I have read too little from you so far to be able to evaluate that, even remotely, at this time.
In this sense, I wish you a nice weekend.
I also wish to have had one.
Rhenish greetings