Niedersachsin
2021-12-10 23:29:02
- #1
After a long time of reading, I have now also registered and come directly with a question.
We are building a house in Lower Saxony. Our company has given us the final contract to review, and some passages do not sound good to me. The cost breakdown for our special requests is still unclear, but these clauses worry me more. Of course, it is unlikely that among you there is a lawyer specializing in construction law who can give me a legally binding answer. That we will have the contract officially reviewed if we cannot negotiate the clauses to our satisfaction is then indispensable. For now, I am simply interested in your opinion. How do you assess this? Are such clauses worrisome in your eyes or rather standard?
One clause is the following:
The clients and (company name) may terminate this contract for important reasons without[U] notice period. After termination, the clients and (company name) may require each other to cooperate in a joint determination of the performance status. If cooperation or participation in an appointment set within a reasonable period for performance determination is refused, the burden of proof for the performance status at the time of termination falls on the party that refused. This does not apply if the omitted cooperation or participation is due to a circumstance for which the respective party is not responsible. The services performed by (company name) up to the termination must be paid for by the clients.
Well, it is unlikely that we would terminate the contract in the middle of construction. However, if a more lucrative contract comes along for the company or if there are disagreements during the construction phase (e.g. due to defects), the company could, invoking some willfully important reason (which is also not defined in the contract), withdraw from the contract, and we would then be left with a half-finished house. Nowadays, it is unlikely to spontaneously find someone who will just continue building your house under similar conditions. Half-finished houses have already driven many clients into financial ruin. Do you also see this passage as problematic?
Another passage:
Until the handover of the house, the clients grant (company name) the right to house access. The property belongs to us, and we are building through a construction company, not a general contractor. I am happy to grant them unrestricted access but would prefer not to be excluded from my own house in case of disagreements. We pay in construction phases. That means services are always paid proportionally to the construction phase, and the company does not advance payment.
There are still some other points, but that might be too long for one post (and thus also for my first one).
I would simply be happy about your opinion and an assessment of how you would proceed. Maybe all this is quite normal, contractually usual, and lawful.
We are building a house in Lower Saxony. Our company has given us the final contract to review, and some passages do not sound good to me. The cost breakdown for our special requests is still unclear, but these clauses worry me more. Of course, it is unlikely that among you there is a lawyer specializing in construction law who can give me a legally binding answer. That we will have the contract officially reviewed if we cannot negotiate the clauses to our satisfaction is then indispensable. For now, I am simply interested in your opinion. How do you assess this? Are such clauses worrisome in your eyes or rather standard?
One clause is the following:
The clients and (company name) may terminate this contract for important reasons without[U] notice period. After termination, the clients and (company name) may require each other to cooperate in a joint determination of the performance status. If cooperation or participation in an appointment set within a reasonable period for performance determination is refused, the burden of proof for the performance status at the time of termination falls on the party that refused. This does not apply if the omitted cooperation or participation is due to a circumstance for which the respective party is not responsible. The services performed by (company name) up to the termination must be paid for by the clients.
Well, it is unlikely that we would terminate the contract in the middle of construction. However, if a more lucrative contract comes along for the company or if there are disagreements during the construction phase (e.g. due to defects), the company could, invoking some willfully important reason (which is also not defined in the contract), withdraw from the contract, and we would then be left with a half-finished house. Nowadays, it is unlikely to spontaneously find someone who will just continue building your house under similar conditions. Half-finished houses have already driven many clients into financial ruin. Do you also see this passage as problematic?
Another passage:
Until the handover of the house, the clients grant (company name) the right to house access. The property belongs to us, and we are building through a construction company, not a general contractor. I am happy to grant them unrestricted access but would prefer not to be excluded from my own house in case of disagreements. We pay in construction phases. That means services are always paid proportionally to the construction phase, and the company does not advance payment.
There are still some other points, but that might be too long for one post (and thus also for my first one).
I would simply be happy about your opinion and an assessment of how you would proceed. Maybe all this is quite normal, contractually usual, and lawful.