Sampling and execution drawing with content differences

The execution drawing is for "information only". The sample approval has been signed.

A set of equipment was delivered that we did not sample in this way.

What exactly is it about? Let's not leave us hanging like this.

Attention layman’s opinion: if you have signed something, it is more binding than an execution drawing for your information. Since you were not charged any extra, no damage has resulted for you and a change is your problem. Presumably, the builder says exactly that and you interpret it as "stalling for time." As for me, I am also not very eager to help further with the refusal to provide information.

Do I understand this correctly? You sampled something, probably sorted it, it doesn't appear in the protocol, you didn't pay anything for it, and now you are complaining because it is not being delivered?

During the course of the construction planning, there was a so-called sample selection for the equipment with a final sampling protocol. Here we discussed an equipment and, in our opinion, it was also accepted. However, this equipment was not included as an item in the sampling protocol and we did not notice it. There was also no cost addendum for this equipment. However, the mentioned equipment appears one step later in the execution drawing, which is based on the sampling protocol. During construction execution, this equipment was missing contrary to the execution drawing.

An equipment was delivered that was not sampled by us in this way. Although it is missing in the sampling protocol, it is present again in the subsequent execution drawing. Correction would only work through re-creation, duration about 3 months. Compensation payment is difficult, would have to be negotiated. Correction would be preferred by us. But I am primarily concerned with the legal situation: missing in sampling, present in execution drawing. Have there been such cases before, and how were they decided?

The execution drawing is only "for information". The sampling was signed.

Such cases certainly have occurred before, to my recollection they have not been discussed here in the past six and a half years, and probably have not been judged at the federal level either. Incorporating rulings of a supreme court of another federal state into one's own judgment could also be done by any court at its discretion. So, let us consider the facts: 1. There is a sampling protocol. All judges will probably have the attitude that this documentation weighs more than the differing memory, even if the latter were supported by an execution drawing. 2. That an execution drawing alone does not constitute a guarantee of characteristics is probably the view of the majority of courts. Consequently, it is also not an "order confirmation" of the recalled but not documented equipment in the protocol. I therefore see no legally actionable conflict here. Subject to a little withheld clarity, other judgments are conceivable ;-)

So to make sure it is properly understood:

1. During the sample review, you selected an additional feature, but this was not recorded in the sampling protocol and was not charged with an extra fee. Correct?
2. This extra then suddenly appears in the execution drawing. Correct?
3. During construction, this extra, which was also not charged, is then not implemented. Correct?

That means the construction matches the sampling protocol, but not the execution plan and basically corresponds to what you paid for, right? How the execution plan is to be assessed now, no idea. But the question is, what kind of upgrade are we talking about here if this leads to a delay of 3 months? I think this detail would already be interesting. As mentioned, it is probably difficult to say how this would be judged by a court. The sampling does not include the feature and was signed off, and the feature was not charged. On the other hand, there is the execution plan, which was only acknowledged. Intuitively, I could imagine that the sampling protocol is then decisive. Therefore, the question would be what exactly is being discussed to assess whether (if there is legally the possibility) the trouble is worth it.