ᐅ Prefabricated House: Ceiling Height Lower Than Agreed – Points of Reference for Damage Assessment

ypg schrieb:

Not slow at all. First, I wrote “can.”

Actually, it is slow. You are nowhere near an implied acceptance with just a wardrobe. Even if you say “can,” it only creates unnecessary uncertainty. It’s better to advise the original poster not to proceed with moving in (or to take precautions as I mentioned and especially to carefully read their contract regarding acceptance).

But now they are acting appropriately, and the acceptance would not suddenly legalize the obvious defect.

nordanney schrieb:

You're miles away from an implied acceptance just because of a cabinet.

Not at all. It is a tacit acceptance.
And to @SchreinerKl, withholding a remaining payment does not reverse the rights; if anything, it’s the other way around 😉

When setting up a cabinet, this can be seen as an acceptance of delivery, which should be immediately followed by a complaint about any defects found. To ensure that the complaint is timely, properly formatted, and complete, defects should not be reported in a piecemeal manner. A lawyer should also know the appropriate experts to consult (and will explain the responsibilities regarding the burden of proof and liability). So, close your laptop and call your lawyer.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

What is the point of this whole acceptance discussion regarding the incorrectly constructed ceiling height?
You imply that once it is accepted (whether consciously or unconsciously), the faulty construction work is somehow nullified... that is incorrect!
And if I only notice the defect 2 years after acceptance, the contractor is still liable for damages—as long as I can prove that they caused the error (reversal of the burden of proof).
With a scratch on a sliding door 2 years after acceptance, that might be difficult—but with a ceiling height that is too low, it’s easy!
GD

Gerddieter schrieb:

What is the point of this whole acceptance discussion regarding the incorrectly constructed ceiling height?
You imply that if the work is accepted (whether consciously or unconsciously), the faulty workmanship is resolved? … that is not true!

You must have misunderstood that. Without question, anyone can clearly see—and there is no room for debate—that a cabinet will not fit into a room that is 10 cm (4 inches) too low. Factually, there is no difficult proof required here. Legally, however, the acceptance—whether explicit or implied—creates a reversal of the burden of proof: until that point, the contractor must prove that they fully earned their payment; afterward, they may assume this is proven, and the client must claim that the value received for their money is not correct. The client must also observe the proper form and deadlines and should clearly indicate, for example, if their complaint is to be completed. If the contractor can reasonably assume they have performed and delivered completely and properly, their payment becomes due. Just as the contractor can implicitly accept the work, the due date for payment can also arise through formal deficiencies or missed deadlines of the complaint, and suddenly the contractor can demand the release of the withheld payment. It is potentially an expensive mistake to assume that the amount and duration of the retention is at the discretion of the client and that their subjective dissatisfaction is sufficient for unilateral pressure tactics. No—rather, they must observe the delicate balance of the principle of reasonableness and wisely assume that assessing their own behavior exceeds the understanding of a non-lawyer. So quickly to the lawyer with the grievance if one does not want to become the self-goal champion. Even a lawyer might be a hot-headed troublemaker full of know-it-all arrogance, but at least they have professional liability insurance and (alas) have "studied" form and deadline requirements, as the Privy Councillor so nicely said.

When furnishing their rooms, the client transforms from builder to homeowner and with that from client to debtor of payment, whether they are aware of the legal dimension of their actions or not. The protection usually granted to non-business consumers is often underestimated and then forces a judge to pronounce a feeling of injustice against “common” human reasoning. “The other party started it and built my beautiful house too low” is of no help, mimimi. It does not matter whether one is competent in using a tape measure and the issue is actually “clear.” It is precisely this incongruity between fairness and the letter of the law for which full jurists were created by the devil (and whichever party resorts to such experts last is the “loser”).

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/