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?
S
Stadtvilla1929 Apr 2019 13:56Well, I wouldn’t rely on what any online retailers offer. In any case, this is no longer available for direct order from Viessmann. Why would he lie to us about that? It wouldn’t benefit him anyway.
G
Grantlhaua29 Apr 2019 15:01Stadtvilla19 schrieb:
We also signed the contract for the electrical work there, but now we want to do about 80% of it ourselves since my cousin is an electrician. This was rejected because we signed a contract, and if we don’t comply, we would have to pay a penalty. Therefore, I am not willing to make many concessions to the company. Why don’t you simply compromise on the electrical work? That way, everyone would benefit.
S
Stadtvilla1929 Apr 2019 16:06That’s the question here...
Generally speaking, I want to know my negotiating position in advance...
If I buy an item and it is no longer available, am I automatically entitled to a more expensive replacement item, or do I have to accept an alternative or make an additional payment?
Isn’t there a lawyer here… 😎 😀 🤨
Generally speaking, I want to know my negotiating position in advance...
If I buy an item and it is no longer available, am I automatically entitled to a more expensive replacement item, or do I have to accept an alternative or make an additional payment?
Isn’t there a lawyer here… 😎 😀 🤨
F
Fairplay-Haus29 Apr 2019 16:25As far as I know, the item explicitly stated in the contract must also be delivered. If Viessmann has discontinued the product, the supplier cannot be held responsible, unless they have known about it for a long time. However, they are obligated to provide a comparable replacement item. I would not agree to a deal involving the electrical contract. In that case, you are likely to come off worse.
Stadtvilla19 schrieb:
Isn't there a lawyer here... 😎 😀 🤨Legal advice is not allowed here!
The terms and conditions must exist somewhere! And this would definitely be considered force majeure or something similar. However, you can also negotiate regarding the electrical work. Just being stubborn doesn’t pay off here; diplomacy is more effective 🙂