Special request not fulfillable, although stipulated in the purchase contract!

Hello,

thank you very much for your opinions. I think I may have expressed myself somewhat inaccurately. By moving the wall, the kitchen was supposed to be enlarged and additionally the wall should be extended and a door installed. This was then included as a special request with the planned additional costs in the purchase contract. I probably agreed to the new version too quickly so that the construction would not be delayed and also tended to let it rest there. Acquaintances have now been persuading me that I might have suffered a loss and should consider legal steps. Therefore, I wanted to get independent opinions. I still find it strange that such an arrangement in the purchase contract apparently does not mean much. From my side, the thread can be closed. Best regards Juliane

What is your "damage"? And .... "too quickly" (but at least) agreed to the new version. This means that a contract modification has been carried out, probably effective here. Or did the creator coerce you, threaten you, or deceitfully mislead you? Exert pressure in some other way? And I cannot see any damage, unless a possibly existing kitchen was supposed to be installed or a kitchen was ordered based on the plan changes. Something like that.

I did not want to offend anyone here, but simply gather your experiences/opinions on such a case. I ask for an appropriate tone and of course I was not pressured. In my previous post, I only admitted to possibly agreeing too quickly. However, I probably acted correctly and spared my nerves and avoided conflict.

It is astonishing that a factual contribution is apparently regarded as an inappropriate tone. I found my contributions extraordinarily factual. There is simply a lack of a lot of information for an assessment. The term "Schaden" is always also a legal term here. This can be quite clearly distinguished from "perceived" damages. And when loudly calling for lawyers, the question always arises as to which legal grounds for claims could be effective here. For this, one must know how the processes occurred. This may sound rude, but it serves a (somehow) sufficient substantive preliminary review. Believing oneself to be right and actually having (getting) it are two different things. ;-)

Are you getting the original additional costs reimbursed? If not, of course a disadvantage has arisen.

Good evening Juliane,

I do ask for an appropriate tone ...

I would like to have this statement explained a little more closely ...!

Best regards from the Rhineland