ᐅ Cost increase surcharge for the kitchen after contract signing
Created on: 13 Oct 2021 07:47
E
exto1791
Hello everyone,
Yesterday we received the final offer for our kitchen, and we noticed the following clause in the offer:
"The offer is valid until 28.02.2022. If the kitchen is accepted after 01.03.2022, we unfortunately have to charge a price increase surcharge of 4.5%."
I don’t quite understand this. If I place the order for the kitchen now, I am committing to the price in the offer, so I shouldn’t have to accept any surcharge. We are planning to move in around April/May, so it’s quite possible the kitchen won’t be accepted before 01.03.2022.
The dealer’s response was that the kitchen should be taken into stock by February next year, meaning the kitchen would need to be measured early enough once the plasterer has finished. Then it might still be possible to avoid the surcharge.
We are really very, very happy with our kitchen builder, but I honestly think this is unacceptable. What experiences have you had with this? Is this actually common?
Yesterday we received the final offer for our kitchen, and we noticed the following clause in the offer:
"The offer is valid until 28.02.2022. If the kitchen is accepted after 01.03.2022, we unfortunately have to charge a price increase surcharge of 4.5%."
I don’t quite understand this. If I place the order for the kitchen now, I am committing to the price in the offer, so I shouldn’t have to accept any surcharge. We are planning to move in around April/May, so it’s quite possible the kitchen won’t be accepted before 01.03.2022.
The dealer’s response was that the kitchen should be taken into stock by February next year, meaning the kitchen would need to be measured early enough once the plasterer has finished. Then it might still be possible to avoid the surcharge.
We are really very, very happy with our kitchen builder, but I honestly think this is unacceptable. What experiences have you had with this? Is this actually common?
T
Trademark13 Oct 2021 16:57exto1791 schrieb:
The point is: For me, that wasn’t a "stylish" action and also not a satisfying solution – period. I believe that in the end, most forum members will agree with you regarding the style. However, maybe it wasn’t meant to be cheeky from the kitchen studio’s side, but rather just careless or inattentive, and there could be a thousand reasons for that. The workload at your kitchen studio could also be a factor.
If your planner had informed you in advance that something like this was coming, everything would have been fine again in terms of style.
In the end, the 4.5% appeared on the table initially without negotiation. They don’t necessarily have to remain.
exto1791 schrieb:
I don’t quite understand?? If I order the kitchen now, I am committing to the price in the quote and naturally won’t accept any additional charges. We expect to move in around April/May – so it’s quite possible that the kitchen acceptance won’t take place by 01.03.2022. I really don’t see the problem here. Your kitchen installer is explaining how any potential additional charges might be avoided. Unfortunately, this is the moment when you apparently cannot guarantee to act accordingly on your side. So the measurement and therefore the order must be done before 01.03.22.
You expect someone to commit now to a price that they can only secure themselves at the earliest on 01.03, because they give you that much time to take the final measurements. And YES, kitchen planning and installation does depend on the last few centimeters after all.
After a longer planning phase, you have now reached a conclusion and can somewhat estimate when the necessary services can be earliest utilized, and you are offered “only” a 4.5% surcharge at the moment. That is low, considering delivery difficulties especially in the kitchen appliance sector, it must sadly be said this is now even generous— and above all precisely specified in terms of percentage. There are plenty of other offers saying “from xx.xx.xxxx the suppliers’ price increases will be passed on in full.” So if the supplier raises prices over a period of +xx months (and with the current construction schedules that can quickly be 12 months or more), you are CONTRACTUALLY bound WITHOUT a specific price clause.
Trademark schrieb:
If your planner had informed you in advance that something was coming,The information was provided with the FINAL offer that is intended to lead to the contract. That is why documents that result in signed contracts should be read CAREFULLY. I don’t see what is unfair about that.kbt09 schrieb:
The information came with the FINAL offer, which is supposed to lead to the contract. That’s why you SHOULD carefully read documents that lead to signed contracts. I don’t see what’s unfair about that. As I said, the customer focus just doesn’t fit for me here. Simply done poorly – that’s all I can say 😀
That’s what I criticize, and it’s perfectly legitimate. Without prior price negotiations, he could have come up with another solution instead of “if we can take measurements early enough, then we can manage it.”
But yes, unfortunately, that’s how the industry is 🙁
C
chand198614 Oct 2021 08:42I keep wondering what the alternative would have been: to point out the possibility of price increases with every revision and new quote, even though the exact amount and timing are still unknown? And this while the parameters can change again with each correction requested by the client?
Therefore, I see it differently: The final offer, which was timed according to the client's wishes, includes a percentage clause with a specific date. This was provided alongside what is claimed to be very good planning work at a fair price. All of this within the given, quite unusual framework conditions of the current general price spiral. In my opinion, this is understandable and also proper communication – because, as mentioned above, the alternative does not make sense.
Therefore, I see it differently: The final offer, which was timed according to the client's wishes, includes a percentage clause with a specific date. This was provided alongside what is claimed to be very good planning work at a fair price. All of this within the given, quite unusual framework conditions of the current general price spiral. In my opinion, this is understandable and also proper communication – because, as mentioned above, the alternative does not make sense.
Similar topics