Surcharges of 10% despite a fixed price contract

Sorry for double posting: There is another trick, especially with developers who then build several row houses, etc. at once: They set up a GmbH specifically for the contracts, whose business purpose is solely the sale of the properties and completion of the project. The company presents itself to the buyers as the experienced local construction firm, but the contract is actually with this GmbH, which, as soon as the acceptance has taken place, practically only acts as a mailbox company until it is dissolved one or two years later. 5 years warranty? Forget it, because your contractual partner no longer exists. Any assets have long since been transferred to the parent company via a profit transfer agreement or even paid out as salary to the managing director (the latter less likely because it's bad for taxes).

Thank you for this very, very important contribution.

or as an "alternative": the settlement is completely developed and built by a single company. However, this company is divided into a Grund GmbH and a Bau GmbH. Two contracts are concluded at the notary: one for the purchase of the land from the Grund GmbH plus another construction contract for the actual building by the Bau GmbH.

Most builders don't really care what costs what—they want a finished house on the land!

However, the Grund GmbH sells relatively expensively, and the construction itself is relatively cheap, close to cost price.

If something goes wrong with the construction, the entrepreneur in the background has already made the bigger profit with the Grund GmbH—and if the warranty claims become too high because the subcontractors worked too sloppily, he just lets the Bau GmbH go bankrupt with a smile and then starts a Bau 2.0 GmbH with the old team for the next project.

Therefore, a credit report on your construction partners, including any changes in managing directors, the founding year, and the financial statements of at least the last 4 years is definitely worthwhile!

Any assets have long since been paid out to the parent company [...] by way of a profit transfer agreement

Sorry, that is nonsense. Neither assets nor settlement claims would be profit.

Thank you for this very, very important contribution.

No, it is always sad to read again and again what is dreamed up here at the regulars' table about insolvency law & co :-(

Sorry, that is nonsense. Neither assets nor settlement balances would be profit. No, it is always sad to read again and again what is dreamt wrong about insolvency law & Co. here at the regulars' table :-(

Strange, but exactly that happened with the property in which my condominium is located. What do you call what remains in a GmbH founded specifically for the project after deducting construction and operating costs as well as paying off the bank loan from the sales proceeds? In the time between receipt of payment and transfer, what is that if not (book) assets? By the way, the company is not (yet) insolvent, only when the claims for damages arrive and are to be enforced in court. But if the company has already been liquidated then, it leads nowhere.

Assets would not be profit, but would remain assets (substance), would have to be paid out as settlement funds in the event of liquidation, and would also counteract insolvency. It could not be reclassified as "profit," and consequently could not be transferred. By the way, a purpose company (GmbH) for the construction of a single property is not questionable.

I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make with your statements, it's as if you said that the tank content is not refueling. It is clear that assets cannot retrospectively (directly) become profit, but that is not the point. They are different dimensions (balance sheet vs. income statement). Assets are (among other things) what is available as value in the account. If a profit transfer agreement exists, on a specific date (often once a year), after the official closing of a fiscal year, the annual profit stated therein is transferred. It then no longer exists as an asset of that company.