Price increase - Our construction company wants 21.4% more

Sorry, time limit for processing exceeded, so here’s a late follow-up: Just as an example: The common 14-day cancellation right in Germany is of course not comparable and I don’t want a cancellation right or anything like that now, but it shows what is theoretically possible in terms of consumer protection..... it doesn’t have to be that extreme.

Sorry, I totally agree with Pinki. To me, this smells like old fish. But the comparison to the cancellation right in the Distance Selling Act is really inappropriate. This concerns defined products. Off-the-shelf items, produced thousands, millions of times identically. The statutory right of withdrawal only applies to purchases under the Distance Selling Act because the products cannot be inspected beforehand. That’s why, contrary to some common opinion, there is no right of withdrawal in retail. Added to this are contracts concluded via the internet or telephone, because it is assumed there that the scope of a contract is not clear at the time of conclusion and the customer must be given the chance to inspect the purchased item even after concluding the contract. Individual products, for example, are explicitly excluded. A painting that you commission, a custom-built piece of furniture, etc., are excluded from withdrawal. There are also options there, but they are highly complex. In my opinion, a house is a) an extremely individually planned matter and b) presumably no one plans and commissions a house online. Depending on the contractor, you receive contracts or offers. You can read them calmly and commission or not. The cancellation right in the Distance Selling Act is good (unfortunately often abused), but it has no place here. Regardless, I fear that is being taken advantage of. I would really consult a lawyer if I were you. And if only to know on what basis to make decisions to pay more. Possibly the lawyer says “not possible at all, they have no chance to succeed with this.” That does not mean a legal dispute. Initially just a letter that puts you in a different position in the case. Possibly the lawyer also says “hmm, difficult. To me, that seems fishy. I can do something but can’t promise it will help.” That’s then a gamble. In the worst case, he says “sorry, everything is clean. That won’t help.” Anyway, in all three situations you have the choice how to proceed. That is initially only legal advice. Nothing more. I would have the need to know where I stand and then make my decision.

The right of withdrawal under the Distance Selling Act is good (unfortunately it is often abused), but it has no place here.

You simply did not understand my text or my texts. It is clearly discernible that I am not concerned with a right of withdrawal, and yet half of your post is about that o_O

The lawyer might also say, "hmm, difficult. That seems shady to me. I can do something but can’t promise it will help." That is then gambling. In the worst case, he says, "sorry, everything is clean. That brings nothing."

Again way too black and white... well, perhaps in this case, after studying the contracts, one could give a relatively clear statement and I personally would have this checked here as well. There are also different lawyers... honest ones and those who appear boastful. That is the next hurdle for a layperson: recognizing how well and realistically the situation is assessed. The lawyer himself has nothing to lose, he gets his money anyway. Therefore, many are also inclined to say it’s a clear case, I will easily win this case for you. In law, it is rarely completely clear... partly due to lawyers being of different quality. Usually, the company also has the more expensive and better representation ;) In construction law, I would personally be extremely cautious if it is not made clear: you can do everything, but the outcome is open and the duration usually eternal, with immense costs.

Well, you say it's not about me, but somehow it is after all. Something could be done about that.

I clearly said that this is just an example of WHAT (in terms of scope etc.) is possible regarding consumer protection. Consumers should simply be protected more generally, especially because of the information and knowledge deficit.

I clearly said that this is just an example of WHAT (in terms of scope, etc.) is possible regarding consumer protection. Generally, consumers should simply be better protected, especially because of the information and knowledge deficit.

I still don't understand. You take the right of withdrawal as an example, which doesn't even fit here, then say that you actually don't mean it in that context. The right of withdrawal is clearly defined and makes sense. Please explain how any kind of law could have protected Pinki. Serious question.

That actually goes too far here now, but why you can't (or won't?) understand that is beyond me. Maybe you haven't read/followed the thread completely. I'll try again: I said that I think the legal position of small and mostly non-specialist homeowners in building law is generally much too weak and that this (in my opinion) should be changed significantly. I didn't say exactly how. The right of withdrawal was just an arbitrary example of how well consumers can be protected if one actually wants to. I even wrote explicitly that I do not want a right of withdrawal in building law (which logically doesn't make any sense either, but for specialists like you I explicitly said it :D) and in relation to Pinki it wasn’t meant at all, but rather in a general sense.