Hello,
I have a basic question regarding the legal side of things—maybe someone has some knowledge about this.
We are building a kit house: we will receive the shell from the house company and all the building services from a partner company. Last year, we signed a contract for a Viessmann heat pump, photovoltaic system with battery, and ventilation. We want to join the Viessmann community, which requires having three devices. Since we have a geothermal heat pump, it’s quite easy to use it for cooling the house as well. The additional component is integrated into the heat pump and costs about 1000€ (approximately 1100 USD) extra, and this part is exactly what the issue is about.
Our building services technician recently told us that since April 1st (01.04), Viessmann suddenly and without prior notice has changed its devices. That extra component can no longer be integrated into the heat pump for 1000€ (about 1100 USD), but is only available as an external unit for 3000€ (about 3300 USD) extra. Our technician then said that Waterkotte is the only manufacturer that still integrates that component into the heat pump at a fair price. At first, this didn’t bother me. He said he would install a Waterkotte heat pump for us, and we would still have three devices—ventilation, battery, photovoltaic system—to join the Viessmann community.
At home, however, I started thinking differently. First, I was told that Waterkotte has very poor service, which is why the company switched to Viessmann a few years ago. Second, all Viessmann devices are supposed to communicate with each other. So, I could control ventilation and heating from a single device without needing to adjust settings on two separate units.
Anyway, to make a long story short: What is the legal situation here? I signed a contract for a Viessmann heat pump with cooling, but that product no longer exists as such. If I want to stick with Viessmann, do I have to pay the 2000€ (about 2200 USD) difference myself, or is that the responsibility of the building services company?
I have a basic question regarding the legal side of things—maybe someone has some knowledge about this.
We are building a kit house: we will receive the shell from the house company and all the building services from a partner company. Last year, we signed a contract for a Viessmann heat pump, photovoltaic system with battery, and ventilation. We want to join the Viessmann community, which requires having three devices. Since we have a geothermal heat pump, it’s quite easy to use it for cooling the house as well. The additional component is integrated into the heat pump and costs about 1000€ (approximately 1100 USD) extra, and this part is exactly what the issue is about.
Our building services technician recently told us that since April 1st (01.04), Viessmann suddenly and without prior notice has changed its devices. That extra component can no longer be integrated into the heat pump for 1000€ (about 1100 USD), but is only available as an external unit for 3000€ (about 3300 USD) extra. Our technician then said that Waterkotte is the only manufacturer that still integrates that component into the heat pump at a fair price. At first, this didn’t bother me. He said he would install a Waterkotte heat pump for us, and we would still have three devices—ventilation, battery, photovoltaic system—to join the Viessmann community.
At home, however, I started thinking differently. First, I was told that Waterkotte has very poor service, which is why the company switched to Viessmann a few years ago. Second, all Viessmann devices are supposed to communicate with each other. So, I could control ventilation and heating from a single device without needing to adjust settings on two separate units.
Anyway, to make a long story short: What is the legal situation here? I signed a contract for a Viessmann heat pump with cooling, but that product no longer exists as such. If I want to stick with Viessmann, do I have to pay the 2000€ (about 2200 USD) difference myself, or is that the responsibility of the building services company?
aero2016 schrieb:
This is probably the typical case of impossibility according to the building code.You can buy the device from many places online; as a customer, it wouldn't matter to me where the supplier obtains it.H
hampshire30 Apr 2019 16:16This would be my approach:
Put your own stubbornness aside and define your goal clearly: What exactly do you want to achieve? How much compromise are you willing to make?
Contact Viessmann directly to get information firsthand, and if necessary, have Viessmann help locate the part through wholesale partners.
Ask the installer for the order date (was it ordered too late?).
Negotiate constructively.
Only escalate if the installer remains completely inflexible.
Put your own stubbornness aside and define your goal clearly: What exactly do you want to achieve? How much compromise are you willing to make?
Contact Viessmann directly to get information firsthand, and if necessary, have Viessmann help locate the part through wholesale partners.
Ask the installer for the order date (was it ordered too late?).
Negotiate constructively.
Only escalate if the installer remains completely inflexible.
S
Stadtvilla1930 Apr 2019 17:06I asked Viessmann, and the Vitocal 333-G is still available, but that wasn’t really the point. The internal cooling was apparently discontinued due to lack of demand because it cannot be combined with an external buffer tank. Now there is only the Vitocal 333-G without cooling, so you have to purchase the external unit separately.
My main concern is about my negotiating position and my rights. If I now say, "No, I want a Viessmann," and my installer says it’s no longer available or that I have to pay an extra $2,000, where do I stand? Am I entitled to insist on what I originally signed for and require them to cover the additional costs, or am I the one who ends up losing out—having to go without the cooling, accept a different manufacturer, or pay the extra charge?
My main concern is about my negotiating position and my rights. If I now say, "No, I want a Viessmann," and my installer says it’s no longer available or that I have to pay an extra $2,000, where do I stand? Am I entitled to insist on what I originally signed for and require them to cover the additional costs, or am I the one who ends up losing out—having to go without the cooling, accept a different manufacturer, or pay the extra charge?
H
hampshire30 Apr 2019 17:32Stadtvilla19 schrieb:
Where do I stand then? Can I insist on what I signed, and does he have to cover the additional costs, or am I the one stuck having to either do without the cooling, get a different manufacturer, or pay the extra charge?Your position is determined by your contract. No one here can tell you for sure. You have already received plenty of guidance on the general terms and conditions and wording in this thread. You are not the one who loses out if you receive the cooling feature, even if the component is supplied by another manufacturer. I get the impression that you are looking for an excuse to reduce your order (installation) and do not care if your supplier ends up being the one who is disadvantaged. That does not seem like an interest in a fair solution.
Stadtvilla19 schrieb:
So, I checked with Viessmann; the Vitocal 333-G is still available, but that wasn’t really the point. However, the internal cooling system has been discontinued due to lack of demand, because it cannot be combined with an external buffer tank. Now, only the Vitocal 333-G without cooling is available, so you have to purchase the external component separately...
My concern is more about my negotiating position and my rights. If I say "no, I want a Viessmann," but my installer says it’s no longer available or I have to pay an extra $2,000, where do I stand? Can I insist on what I signed, and must they cover the additional costs? Or am I the one who loses out, having to either do without the cooling, accept a different brand, or pay the surcharge?I would (again) say this is covered by building law. Probably not in the general terms and conditions. This is likely a case of subsequent impossibility. The installer is not obligated to install something that no longer exists. On the other hand, there may be liability for damages.S
Stadtvilla1930 Apr 2019 19:02As mentioned, I don’t have general terms and conditions included; it is a service contract listing all the components that are to be installed by us. There is no attachment with general terms and conditions, nor is there any mention of them anywhere in the contract.
I am not trying to get anything extra; I only want what I signed for, which is a Viessmann unit with cooling, but without any additional charge or similar conditions.
I am not trying to get anything extra; I only want what I signed for, which is a Viessmann unit with cooling, but without any additional charge or similar conditions.
Similar topics