Dear future homeowners and those intending to become one,
I would like to take the opportunity of a user's question to point out some of the nuances – or better, potential pitfalls – in contract drafting. In the specific case, the homeowners were informed during planning that the finished ground floor must be at least 35 cm (14 inches) above ground level to prevent possible construction damage caused by moisture. The result might be that the occupants end up accepting unwanted steps leading into the house or incur additional costs for waterproofing that was not initially agreed upon in the contract.
This is a classic example of surprises during the planning or construction phase. Usually, a building contract with a general contractor – hereafter simply called GC – is signed before planning, so the exact vertical positioning of the house is not clearly defined. In the contract, the GC outlines the prerequisites upon which the contract price is based. The issue of vertical positioning is often mentioned only briefly and superficially, for example, stating that the finished floor is to be 30 cm (12 inches) above ground level. This sounds reasonable, as we all know it is good if water drains away from the house. Sometimes, however, some homeowners assume that they can compensate for this with landscaping to have as smooth a transition to the garden as possible.
Possible outcomes of the initially described case might be:
- the occupants accept steps leading into the house that they did not want
- additional costs (change orders) arise due to waterproofing not contractually agreed upon
- the homeowners add soil around the house after completion to such an extent that the height difference stipulated by the GC as a prerequisite is no longer maintained – should moisture damage then occur, the homeowners will be held responsible.
None of these outcomes are satisfactory. While the GC can be criticized for insufficient clarification, legally the GC is well protected.
The example described above is just one of many pitfalls hidden in the seemingly harmless wording of building contracts and their technical specifications. Even more challenging to assess than the fine print is what is not written at all.
Please forgive me for advocating, as a professional construction advisor, that an external expert consultation take place before signing the contract. The greatest potential for saving costs and avoiding trouble lies, after all, in the pre-contract phase.
I would like to take the opportunity of a user's question to point out some of the nuances – or better, potential pitfalls – in contract drafting. In the specific case, the homeowners were informed during planning that the finished ground floor must be at least 35 cm (14 inches) above ground level to prevent possible construction damage caused by moisture. The result might be that the occupants end up accepting unwanted steps leading into the house or incur additional costs for waterproofing that was not initially agreed upon in the contract.
This is a classic example of surprises during the planning or construction phase. Usually, a building contract with a general contractor – hereafter simply called GC – is signed before planning, so the exact vertical positioning of the house is not clearly defined. In the contract, the GC outlines the prerequisites upon which the contract price is based. The issue of vertical positioning is often mentioned only briefly and superficially, for example, stating that the finished floor is to be 30 cm (12 inches) above ground level. This sounds reasonable, as we all know it is good if water drains away from the house. Sometimes, however, some homeowners assume that they can compensate for this with landscaping to have as smooth a transition to the garden as possible.
Possible outcomes of the initially described case might be:
- the occupants accept steps leading into the house that they did not want
- additional costs (change orders) arise due to waterproofing not contractually agreed upon
- the homeowners add soil around the house after completion to such an extent that the height difference stipulated by the GC as a prerequisite is no longer maintained – should moisture damage then occur, the homeowners will be held responsible.
None of these outcomes are satisfactory. While the GC can be criticized for insufficient clarification, legally the GC is well protected.
The example described above is just one of many pitfalls hidden in the seemingly harmless wording of building contracts and their technical specifications. Even more challenging to assess than the fine print is what is not written at all.
Please forgive me for advocating, as a professional construction advisor, that an external expert consultation take place before signing the contract. The greatest potential for saving costs and avoiding trouble lies, after all, in the pre-contract phase.
F
funnyvondannen10 Oct 2012 16:54baucoach schrieb:
Please understand that, as a professional construction supervisor, I strongly recommend obtaining external expert advice before signing any contract. The greatest potential for saving costs and avoiding problems lies precisely in the pre-contract phase.Unfortunately, this has proven to be true too many times. Still, many of us as homeowners tend to overlook it because it is not an immediate or urgent expense. Sad but true...