ᐅ Contracts Signed – Doubts Within the Cooling-Off Period
Created on: 28 Mar 2018 06:48
S
Stagenberger
I signed the contract with the bank and the developer last week and was initially optimistic.
But now I have some doubts about the developer. The reasons are:
1. Several negative reviews online (though almost as many positive ones as well), which I only discovered after signing the contract; if I had seen them beforehand, I might not have signed.
2. I don’t personally know anyone who has built with this company. However, most people say the company has a good reputation and that they are not aware of any negative experiences.
3. The originally very low-priced offer was somewhat optimistically estimated, as my architect friend pointed out (this is also one of the criticisms mentioned online). With additional corrections costing around 20,000 (about 22,000) it is now roughly at the same price level as the competition.
4. The bank representative almost let slip shortly before signing that there could possibly be problems with the loan-to-value ratio “due to the value of the house” (which ultimately did not occur).
5. I reviewed the offer from my second favorite developer and found that it actually offers slightly better services for almost the same price.
Why I originally chose this developer:
Good advice beforehand, detailed costs, they were the only ones to visit the plot, and I had a good feeling.
What would you do in my situation?
a) Have the contract reviewed again by other experts (second architect, second lawyer)?
b) ["Radical solution"] Withdraw from the contract and go with my second choice (a different developer, almost the same price)?
c) Build with the architect, which might be more expensive and would significantly delay the process since he currently has several large projects underway?
d) ?
But now I have some doubts about the developer. The reasons are:
1. Several negative reviews online (though almost as many positive ones as well), which I only discovered after signing the contract; if I had seen them beforehand, I might not have signed.
2. I don’t personally know anyone who has built with this company. However, most people say the company has a good reputation and that they are not aware of any negative experiences.
3. The originally very low-priced offer was somewhat optimistically estimated, as my architect friend pointed out (this is also one of the criticisms mentioned online). With additional corrections costing around 20,000 (about 22,000) it is now roughly at the same price level as the competition.
4. The bank representative almost let slip shortly before signing that there could possibly be problems with the loan-to-value ratio “due to the value of the house” (which ultimately did not occur).
5. I reviewed the offer from my second favorite developer and found that it actually offers slightly better services for almost the same price.
Why I originally chose this developer:
Good advice beforehand, detailed costs, they were the only ones to visit the plot, and I had a good feeling.
What would you do in my situation?
a) Have the contract reviewed again by other experts (second architect, second lawyer)?
b) ["Radical solution"] Withdraw from the contract and go with my second choice (a different developer, almost the same price)?
c) Build with the architect, which might be more expensive and would significantly delay the process since he currently has several large projects underway?
d) ?
T
toxicmolotof28 Mar 2018 16:02MayrCh schrieb:
Nonsense. That might be an ideal to strive for, but it has nothing to do with the current market situation. And yet, there is more truth in that regarding house construction than you’re trying to convince me otherwise.
MayrCh schrieb:
Please. Not every flawed comparison is valid. Fully developed modular cross-building kits, brand image, target market—these are all factors that affect price more than performance or quality. So is that supposed to be positive for Dacia or for Audi?
Of course, there is a difference in price, quality, and workmanship. If you’re really trying to sell me otherwise now, I won’t take you seriously anymore.
toxicmolotow schrieb:
And yet there is more truth in housebuilding than you are trying to convince me otherwise. Again. No. The market right now is heavily driven by supply and demand. A craftsman or construction company with a full schedule will inevitably charge different prices than someone urgently needing jobs at the moment.
toxicmolotow schrieb:
Is that positive for Dacia or for Audi? Positive for whoever can benefit from synergies. For Audi, that is their developed MBQ platform; for Dacia, the fact that the Duster shares components with the Renault Clio. If Audi, for example, had to completely develop all system components of an A3 from scratch, the finished product would be significantly more expensive than an MBQ-based A3—assuming the same quality and performance. It’s all about volume, cross-subsidization, and return on investment.
Overhead costs also need to be managed. Audi is a premium partner of FC Bayern, while Dacia advertises during the Sportschau break with Scholl on screen. The different marketing expenses must be recovered and don't directly translate into differences in quality or performance.
toxicmolotow schrieb:
Of course, there is a difference in price, quality, and workmanship. Sticking to the (really poor) example of the automobile industry:
VW Up!, Skoda Citigo, Seat Mii—all VW120—
Three basically identical cars with minimal design differences, all produced in the same factory, which can switch models within one shift. The production costs for the different brands probably differ by only a few euros, yet the VW-branded car is between €1000 and €2000 (depending on trim) more expensive than the Seat, so 10–20%. The differences here are mostly found in brand image and target audience. Quality, workmanship, materials... same same.
Stagenberger schrieb:
b) ["Radical solution"] Withdraw from the contract and go with my second favorite (another builder, almost the same price), Definitely "d." Withdraw, but not immediately go to the other one—instead, after withdrawing, continue to think it over. Without withdrawing but after the deadline has passed, the result of that reflection won’t help anymore; if you withdraw in time, you can still sign with the same builder later if your reconsideration shows: that was actually the right one.
Bookstar schrieb:
For me it was even 5, and I’m still active even though everything is over because it’s fun. And now? – What has your continued involvement and gathering information for assessing your decision brought you: Would your decision be different today?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
K
Knallkörper28 Mar 2018 19:48First, toxic talked about the difference between Dacia and Audi, which is apparently much greater than the difference between Up and Citygo; even though I am not an Audi fan, there is a world of difference. Second, for example, some interior details are better in the Up than in the Citygo. You probably also believe the myth that an Octavia has the same quality as a Golf or even a Passat?
On the topic: If I were you, I would withdraw. That’s precisely what the withdrawal period is for.
On the topic: If I were you, I would withdraw. That’s precisely what the withdrawal period is for.
S
Stagenberger28 Mar 2018 21:01First of all, thanks for the input. I still have a few days to withdraw within the deadline. Over Easter, I will meet with a few people who have recently built.
It’s probably normal to feel nervous about the amounts involved. Unfortunately, you only really understand it after the fact.
Off-topic:
Car manufacturers calculate prices down to 0.1 cent (!). I can explain why the Dacia is cheaper than an Audi, but it would take too long and this isn’t the right forum for that.
To keep it brief: both sides are right, partly because of simpler and/or fully developed components and partly because of brand image.
The absolute and relative margin in the A3 is higher than in the Golf.
The same applies to the Golf and Octavia, although the differences are less clear there. It depends on the engine and trim level. By the way, the chassis including engine and transmission is identical in all three. The Octavia is longer and requires more sheet metal. So what now?
Better to stick to the topic of building. Here there seems to be more expertise than just casual opinions.
Off-topic:
Car manufacturers calculate prices down to 0.1 cent (!). I can explain why the Dacia is cheaper than an Audi, but it would take too long and this isn’t the right forum for that.
To keep it brief: both sides are right, partly because of simpler and/or fully developed components and partly because of brand image.
The absolute and relative margin in the A3 is higher than in the Golf.
The same applies to the Golf and Octavia, although the differences are less clear there. It depends on the engine and trim level. By the way, the chassis including engine and transmission is identical in all three. The Octavia is longer and requires more sheet metal. So what now?
Better to stick to the topic of building. Here there seems to be more expertise than just casual opinions.