Wow, there’s really something going on here! Many thanks for the numerous contributions, I’ll try to sort things out a bit (since now some points have also been highlighted that don’t necessarily relate to the actual question, but are of course still valuable feedback for me in terms of the "Project House Construction")...
Risk tends towards 0, since there is actually no commitment to the construction company. Let it be included in the purchase contract that the plot is sold without obligation, and that’s it.
Ok, I will definitely try to pay attention to that.
Pre-contract before planning smells good.
Pre-contract before land purchase contract smells bad.
Maybe the term "pre-contract" is used differently than I meant. I don’t have a concrete contract yet either; it was only "announced" verbally. My understanding, and I would generally accept it this way, is that it is merely about the prefab house company/architect wanting to secure themselves in case we ultimately decide to build with another company. A compensation amount of max. 3-4000€ was mentioned. I would see that as legitimate, provided that the planning service is then also due to us, i.e., we wouldn’t have to start from scratch again with the planning if we go with another construction company.
Under no circumstances would I want to sign a contract that generally obliges me in any way to build with this company (for example, if things don’t work out with this plot in the end). That’s what I meant by
Of course, we would only sign a construction contract after purchasing the land,
The seller should damn well parcel the plot himself before he sells it (when he marks it out for surveying is another question). The GbR solution is, in my opinion, an unnecessary complication from a procedural perspective.
As I understand it, the seller wants to divide the plot only after the sale for tax reasons. I think the argument was that this way it counts as a private sale, otherwise it would be considered a commercial transaction?
So I don’t see the feared tied selling as described before, but I do see a few yellow warning lights regarding the procedure, and you still need some demystification. Those who are naive will be eaten.
Maybe I am actually naive here? At least it has always been presented to us so far that the purchase via GbR is purely a formality and does not bring any disadvantages for us...
I also wouldn’t want to ruin my creditworthiness by entering into a joint partnership with my future neighbors (even if they were all my classmates and fellow confirmands and still with me at the fire brigade now, no). The devil’s pacts some people are willing to make when there’s a chance to acquire building land sometimes take pretty questionable forms. Desire to build eats brains. By the way, I wouldn’t want, as a settlement asset from a property partnership, to be allocated the long lot at the back left when I preferred the one lying sideways at the front right.
Could you please explain the point about creditworthiness a bit more precisely? My understanding so far was that the GbR actually only exists for the sale itself, that the GbR contract clearly states who gets which plot at what price, and after the division the GbR
There is also the option of a private development, often used by developers who receive a larger plot. This means the developer builds a road that serves the individual plots and makes the customers owners of the access road. They are then responsible for everything that would otherwise fall under the municipality’s responsibility, e.g. winter service, traffic safety obligation, maintenance.
It is actually planned that a dead-end street is privately constructed, and the costs and "ownership shares" of this street are divided among the buyers. Regarding winter service etc., I have already thought about this and will definitely inquire again how this is supposed to work.
Is access via a private road really such a taboo?
Thanks!