Surcharges of 10% despite a fixed price contract

As much as it annoys me to have to write this: it would probably be more sensible to pay the 10% than to terminate the contract. However, I would try to limit it to 5%.... So, think about what you want!

Unfortunately, that is how it is. I even know a general contractor who officially admitted on their own that they abandoned customers because the price increase for materials became too large. They preferred to pay a 20,000 euro penalty but to realize a new project with significantly better prices. The customers simply did not want to pay the price increase, so the general contractor acted like a stubborn child and got out of the contract.

Since he would be responsible for the dissolution, I would see a reimbursement of expenses for it as unjustified.

You were faster than me with deleting. But the entrepreneur will not pay with that reasoning.

The customers simply did not want to pay the price increase, so the general contractor acted like a stubborn child and got out of the contract.

The contractor has to fulfill the contract. The claim for additional costs is not enforceable because the client is not responsible for these additional costs.

In the case of a skilled claim for damages, however, he would certainly have to pay more than 20k. The damage caused by the construction delay alone is already more expensive. The additional costs due to the re-award to a new contractor are not even taken into account.

... I consider that a guaranteed property.

Provided you can still prove that it was advertised as such. Well, everyone did that... but in court and at sea...

They preferred to pay a 20,000 euro fine in order to realize a new project with significantly better prices. The customers simply did not want to pay the price increase, so the general contractor exited the contract like a stubborn child.

Yes, that is one of the problems: other customers pay higher prices and thus the motivation to fulfill the obligations from the older and cheaper contracts is very low. I have long wondered why construction companies even continue working with their older contracts when they can get out relatively cheaply and sell the same houses for much more expensive. Our house is already somewhat advanced, but I will be afraid until the day we move in that it will not be completed because other contracts are more profitable.

Is anyone in the same situation and how did you come to an agreement?

Our situation was a bit different: we missed the price guarantee period, had to pay about 21.6% more, and then agreed on 15.4% additional costs. Bitter, but since we were partly responsible for the delay, we, i.e. I, were able to mentally cope with it quite well. Now our house will be significantly simpler and more Spartan, but we will still be happy there :-) and it is still cheaper for us than paying high rent plus very high additional costs every month.

In the future, such price guarantees will of course no longer be given without further ado.

I wonder how prospective buyers will then be able to decide on a particular house if the price can be increased at the builder’s discretion at the end. Also, price comparisons between different providers will then no longer make sense.

However, the trust is gone, and we fear that even if we comply with the demands, there could repeatedly be such demands during the construction phase (example: windows have become more expensive again, either you pay the additional cost or we do not deliver), ...

If you decide to build with this company, a lawyer will surely be able to tell you how to protect yourselves against further financial demands. However, I assume that ultimately the builder holds the upper hand. Construction companies can sit out legal proceedings for years; builders usually cannot. It also seems that construction companies file for insolvency and then simply continue with a different managing director. Others here in the forum probably know more about that.

In your place, I would be very reluctant to terminate the contract. If you go to another general contractor today, you will probably have to wait another year, which means your subsidy will be lost, and on the other hand, that will almost certainly cost more than "just" 10%.

It would be reasonable to pay the 10% more, legally secured against further additional claims; emotionally highly unsatisfying.

I wonder how prospective builders can still decide on a specific house if the price can ultimately be increased at the builder's discretion. Price comparisons between different providers then no longer make sense.

"At discretion" will certainly not be written there (and in my layman's opinion would also definitely be illegal in consumer construction contracts) but something like "material at current price" or price according to material price index such and such. But of course, it is still unpredictable for the builder and I can hardly imagine that many sales are still made with this in the private customer business. Most do not have the equity reserves to absorb large fluctuations and banks do not finance buffers indefinitely either.