Even our lawyer, who has been specializing in construction law for over 20 years, always tries to resolve problems without going to court, since only damage claims in medical law are more complex and unpredictable. The expert witness costs alone are horrific. And it’s not as if price increases don’t exist.
The price increases are in fact not questionable in reality, and the question of whether they are correctly passed on at that level is indeed a challenge for specialized lawyers. As a businessman, I have my full sympathy for the provider. And from my experience as a debt counselor, I would have even advised here to let things slide and allow oneself to be overcharged by the provider to some degree, to let a commercially survival-essential surcharge go "through" even beyond the consumer law side of the matter. That seemed to me appropriate as far as it can contribute to continuing to deal with one’s contractual partner and not having the insolvency administrator replace him—because compared to the trouble with these guys, a small foul play of a trickster is child’s play.
Where I then clench my fist inside, is the disgraceful communication of not promptly informing about the price increases after the price guarantee expired. However, the clenched fist inside became like an opening switchblade at the point where the customer was given the shock just shortly before the selection appointment. But even that was at first "only" annoying.
I see the culmination of this robbery at the point where the aforementioned over 20 percent (I see twenty-one point four only as a symbolic "should-be-exactly-calculated-as-close-as-possible value") turned out to be an anchoring trick—apparently thrown into the discussion solely so that the fifteen percent allow the racing pulse to recover again, and at the same time make the contractual partner appear as a humane buddy who does everything contributing to moderation. The hall would shake before an audience of fraudsters and criminal officers, and the sham performance would get standing ovations.
In the situation of the apparent damage limitation conference call with subsequent agreement on what to me seems like a long-planned result by the directors, I see essential characteristics of a door-to-door sale fulfilled. In the telephone call between lawyers, I suspect the opposing side to lower their head in guilt within the first two minutes and be ready to agree both to a mutually agreed contract termination and a settlement at 0.6 percentage points for each month between the price guarantee expiration and non-further delayed handover. As I estimate , the slap for the unsportsmanlike contract "partner" is not worth her having to start over again. Therefore, I consider the second approach to be the most recommendable and also promising. I would not be surprised if the opposing side’s legal counsel would feel personally caught. I know the breed too well to expect clean shirts under robes ;-)
I have had exclusively different experiences there... even conversations are categorically rejected. They just sit it out, or the solution for these scoundrels looks like: take it or leave it.
That makes quite a significant difference whether a lawyer knocks or the customer does it themselves. A lawyer is not so easily convinced that their rubber boat is doomed to capsize from the start. The customer himself on the high seas tends to get scared prematurely and sees themselves with no chance against the whale.