Hello,
we are building a prefabricated timber frame house on the Swabian Jura and, after some disputes and stress with the manufacturer (from near Passau), have now received a letter stating that they will stop work immediately until the issues are resolved.
The manufacturer still needs to complete ceiling work, sanitary enclosures, flooring, stairs, and doors. Completion was planned for this year.
What options do I have as the client to ensure that the work is finished as planned this year?
we are building a prefabricated timber frame house on the Swabian Jura and, after some disputes and stress with the manufacturer (from near Passau), have now received a letter stating that they will stop work immediately until the issues are resolved.
The manufacturer still needs to complete ceiling work, sanitary enclosures, flooring, stairs, and doors. Completion was planned for this year.
What options do I have as the client to ensure that the work is finished as planned this year?
H
hampshire28 Nov 2021 02:16HilfeHilfe schrieb:
Why hasn't the original poster responded anymore?My guess: Unmet expectations regarding the level of support from the community.11ant schrieb:
Yes, to a lawyer. But—as several of your respondents have already explained—not to a contentious lawyer, and not with the aim of creating pressure. In principle, lawyers are taught how to handle this properly. You just have to avoid those who filed that knowledge away right after their training.
Exactly: a good lawyer can also restrain a client and “explain things clearly outside of court” if they might be mistaken about their legal rights. Then they can smooth things over before it gets really expensive. I’m currently involved in my second lawsuit regarding house purchase and construction, and based on my experience, no lawyer so far has held back their client. Why would they? They get paid anyway.
Otherwise, I can’t explain why, in case 1, the lawyer didn’t explain to their client (the opposing party) that what they were doing could become very costly in the end (up to 100,000 euros), or why the lawyer of party 2 in the next case didn’t advise their client that it would be better to waive the claim for the outstanding invoice, because pursuing it now would cost them a lot of money instead of making money.
It was also completely ignored that two parties are always involved. What use is it if one party is skilled in nonviolent communication, but the other simply attacks, is convinced they know everything because they have already built 100 houses and you haven’t?
A lawyer is always quite expensive. Even the initial consultation fee of €190 (about $205) can be painful. And with every euro spent on the lawyer, legal proceedings, and everything involved, it becomes more difficult to back out if you realize you are on the wrong path.
I also find it strange to recommend going directly to a lawyer without any information about what happened here. As soon as a lawyer is involved, there is a risk of an even longer construction halt, potentially until the legal process is completed. We don’t even know if this concerns serious construction defects with significant follow-up costs, or just "minor issues," such as a misplaced drywall partition.
I also find it strange to recommend going directly to a lawyer without any information about what happened here. As soon as a lawyer is involved, there is a risk of an even longer construction halt, potentially until the legal process is completed. We don’t even know if this concerns serious construction defects with significant follow-up costs, or just "minor issues," such as a misplaced drywall partition.
H
hampshire28 Nov 2021 11:56Snowy36 schrieb:
From my experience, no lawyer has ever held back their client. Why would they? They get paid anyway. A common legal approach is to set a maximum claim as a basis for negotiation. This also determines the amount in dispute, which affects the lawyer’s fees. In the case of a settlement, the lawyer receives higher compensation. From this perspective, the lawyer has little incentive to adopt a de-escalating approach. However, there are certainly pragmatic lawyers who act not only in their own interest but above all in the best interest of their client.
Snowy36 schrieb:
It was completely ignored that there are always two parties involved. What use is it if one party is skilled in non-violent communication, but the other party just resorts to aggression? Of course, there are opponents where hard tactics are unavoidable. This is unclear here. In strategic negotiation, “going in hard” is rarely the recommended first step.
I am glad to know very good lawyers. We advise each other without charging fees. It is always wise to understand your legal position and risks. Anyone who consults a lawyer to get exactly that assessment pays for advice, without anything being damaged. If afterwards they can sleep better and have an idea for an approach, then that money was well spent.
“Go to a lawyer” often sounds like “let them enforce it for you.” That is a different task, and I recommend being cautious with it.
M
Myrna_Loy28 Nov 2021 12:03Exactly. As a layperson, I’m not familiar with the specifics of deadlines, contractual performance obligations, and so on, since these details are quite different from buying a washing machine. A lawyer can advise me accordingly to avoid delays caused by setting deadlines incorrectly or failing to fulfill my own obligations. Of course, I also need to clearly communicate this as a mandate to the lawyer.
Our lawyer usually lets us draft and send the initial letters ourselves, so we don’t immediately have to use official law firm letterhead if it’s just about legally communicating demands to the contractual partner.
Our lawyer usually lets us draft and send the initial letters ourselves, so we don’t immediately have to use official law firm letterhead if it’s just about legally communicating demands to the contractual partner.
P
pagoni202028 Nov 2021 12:10Snowy36 schrieb:
that no lawyer has stopped their client so farSuch lawyers do exist, and I wouldn’t want any other kind. From experience, lawyers who are loud and aggressive rarely achieve better results than those who approach the matter moderately and thoughtfully. You should also ask such a lawyer to critically review your own perspective. Sometimes it’s simply impossible to see the other side. However, this does not exclude that your own (moderately acting) lawyer can still take a firm stance when necessary.