Siemens Studioline - have I received all the "Monday devices"?

The dealer must provide a warranty. The customer can choose between repair and replacement. I would simply demand a replacement.

The dishwasher and microwave were practically defective from the moment they were put into operation, and yet we were directed to the repair. You can't just choose, otherwise I wouldn't have gone through all that hassle :)

Exactly for this reason, we are still considering switching away from the Studio Line devices to Miele & Co. But whether all this will be spared there is questionable. Nowadays, there is hardly any difference in quality among them. However, the price differs, which speaks in favor of Siemens.

Our cooktop is the ez907kzy1e, the MSRP is hefty. I don't know how much we ultimately paid as part of the settlement/combination with the other devices. However, I have to say personally that I would not buy the cooktop again, even without the technical problems. If such a cooktop is among your closer options, I would explain the reasons to you.

What is really unbeatable is the oven; it keeps its promises and delivers top results.

I also can't recommend the dishwasher: SN87Y801BE ;)

If I were to get rid of the devices via a classifieds portal, my next choice would be Miele. When choosing the current devices, Siemens was more appealing to us visually than Miele. This time, I would consider the appearance more as a secondary aspect :)

,

Just read § 439 Absatz 1 Baugesetzbuch.

It clearly grants a right of choice.
Sure, it still needs to be clarified whether it is disproportionate and so on, but the right of choice stands for now.
And the seller has to fulfill that, not the manufacturer.
I have already had a few disputes with some very large dealers who allegedly have never heard of this law and wanted to pressure me into a repair.

Disclaimer: No legal advice from me.

That is exactly the point - proportionality. In 99% of cases, it is simply disproportionate to demand a new dishwasher, which is why the seller will insist on repair attempts. Therefore, you will often not receive a new large kitchen appliance but rather have to expect a technician.

I had not forgotten that it exists, however, it is not common practice. That is why priority is given to repair under Paragraph 437 (I just looked it up). Success with 439 "kicking doors in" is rarely achieved precisely for reasons of proportionality. Probably not in this example of the OP either. But basically, you are right in what you say. Many sellers do not know it because it is hardly ever applied, at least not in the sales area, more likely on paper when it has already escalated.

…Our cooktop is the ez907kzy1e,… … The dishwasher: SN87Y801BE I also cannot recommend ;)

thank you for the model numbers, I will definitely check that out.

Hmm stupid of me, I didn't think about the protocols because he did everything on the tablet and I didn't have to sign anything..

It was the same for us. But I always paid close attention to these repair protocols and had them sent to me. It also worked via email. ;) I can only recommend the almost "current" Miele appliances. We like them much better than the Siemens appliances by far. We might have also liked to get a Miele oven. But we already knew the Siemens oven from our previous kitchen and were very satisfied with it. I can't say anything about Siemens regarding the dishwasher and the cooktop. Our choice for those had already been Miele products.

That is exactly the point – proportionality. In 99% of cases, it is disproportionate to demand a new dishwasher, which is why the seller will insist on repair attempts.

That is certainly debatable.
However, disproportionality must first be proven.
If a technician can come, uninstall the device, spend a few hours tinkering with it, and then reinstall it,
then the effort to replace it does not initially seem too great to me.
After all, we are talking about mass-produced goods and not a unique item that is difficult to obtain.

I had not forgotten that it exists, but it is not the common practice. That is why paragraph 437 (I quickly checked) gives priority to repair.

Then take a closer look again.
Then the difference between fulfillment and repair (which does not actually exist legally) might stand out.
And then it becomes clear that it only refers to 439, which again grants the choice between replacement and repair!

Using 439 as a "kick down the door" will rarely be successful precisely because of proportionality. Probably not in this example of the OP either. But basically, you are right about what you are saying. Many sellers do not know it as it is almost never applied, at least not in the sales area, rather on paper once it has already escalated.

One should know their rights.

Especially if one has bought the overpriced Studio Line,
which should actually only differ due to the good support of the studio.
If the studio then completely withdraws from responsibility and says that you were just unlucky with lemons, I find that pretty cheeky!