Repair paving works

So I mostly read along silently here and often think that the client is just looking for mistakes. But this one is really funny. I see it like the OP without having to see an order. I give a skilled company the order to create a driveway, properly. For me, usability at the end is part of that. Now maybe I am a trusting person and rely on the skilled worker to do his job properly. If he doesn’t do it, that’s of course bad luck, but basically I am not the fool who should have watched, checked, and pointed things out or to blame if something doesn’t fit. Or am I also supposed to check whether the structure under the pavement is correct? Surely if it isn’t and I notice it much later, I have trouble, but it’s not my fault just because I didn’t check. It is known that mistakes happen on construction sites and things get botched. But I am not to blame for the botch just because I don’t check. That’s what SKILLED WORKERS with EXPERTISE are for. This situation gives me the impression that he knows what he’s doing. And yes, I think the craftsman has to study plans and inform himself. Otherwise, he is not a skilled worker who has an interest in a proper execution and should leave quickly before I make sure he doesn’t get any more orders.

We do not know the order or the length of the driveway at all. I asked what the paver should base their work on – I would say, TE probably does not want a 10% slope either? In this respect, as accepted.

Alright then, a detailed answer after all...
Perhaps everyone should be clear that in such matters not only common sense counts, but also things like the (documented!) previous hints and reports, the actual written agreement, and the further handling by the client of the provided service. Because having the right and getting the right are two different things in Germany, and unfortunately, especially in disputes, rarely sensible.

As already said, one can first try to insist on subsequent performance due to an obvious defect with corresponding reference to §634 of the Construction Code and hope that the contractor will agree directly or propose a reasonable settlement themselves. The correct wording with the appropriate references to the respective legal obligations often works wonders here.

However, enforcing his (in the case of a clear order and undisputed duty to give notice actually existing) right to subsequent performance in this case and with a dispute value of 2000,- in court is at least partially questionable or slightly disproportionate. The duration and upfront costs of this whole procedure are not insignificant and can cost a lot of time and nerves, regardless of the legal situation.

What I see as decisive in this case is above all how clearly it was/is that the road will later be at level X, what exactly the order was and whether the trade was accepted (which does not change anything about the defect but strongly complicates the effort to enforce one’s right).

If nothing special was agreed, one can quite well refer back to clarifying the subjective concept of defect, which logically reads: "if the actual condition deviates unfavorably from the intended condition."
However, this will not be the point in a dispute, but rather whether the client had a duty to give notice or report and to what extent.

Of course, this only represents my personal opinion and experience and is by no means legal advice ;)

Hello,

as always, legal advice may only be given by consulting professions in Germany. The following is therefore based on my personal assessment.

It was about 6 months ago. I had already suspected that it could be tight.

The postscript is imho the problem. You accepted the paving contractor's work 6 months ago; despite reservations on your part:

**"If a defect is visible at acceptance and is accepted despite the defect, the client generally loses their claims for supplementary performance, self-completion, reduction, and withdrawal."**

I agree with – your paver is a weakling and simply dropped the ball. You, as the client, are entitled to expect that he inquires about the planned heights; from whom is ultimately irrelevant.

But – you accepted his work _6 months ago_ (crystal ball mode: possibly not in writing, but by implied conduct. Crystal ball mode off), no ifs or buts. As far as I know, I also do not need the signed contract word for word for that. I may also assume that any follow-up work was not part of the contract; otherwise, the present offer from the paver regarding connection work is otherwise inexplicable.

But I am a layperson

The legislator does not care about that. It assumes that – if a client wants to have a house built – the client informs themselves about their rights and obligations.

Therefore: Ignorantia legis non excusat


**Source: Bauherren-Schutzbund-ev.

Rhenish greetings**

aha now the craftsman also has to play the architect and study the plans or obtain the information? What else should he do, get coffee and prepare breakfast and fire up the grill after work?

There is a limit to service

No - that is where it begins. He does not have to play architect, but rather paver. And yes - that includes studying plans or obtaining plans. That is his job. Paving away without plans is (grossly) negligent.

Regards
Dirk Grafe

What does gross negligence mean? No one is going to die anyway. When I assign something to my job, the department either asks or just does it. It all depends on the quality of the paver. Maybe he was too cheap and only does what he is told or commissioned?

We recently had the same problem with fence workers. The workers on site only did what the foreman told them. When they were told that it was the wrong height, they just continued. Well, we didn’t care, it was commissioned by the general contractor. Now it’s being demolished and redone.

If the original poster already says he had concerns, why didn’t he say anything??? You should free yourself... Paving is one of the last trades, the most stressful time is over, and everyone has those few minutes.