B
Bauherr am L20 Jan 2021 21:30Hello everyone,
We have received an invoice from a trade contractor that includes items which are not justified. What is the best way to handle this situation? Here are the options I currently see:
1. Pay nothing and dispute the invoice.
2. Pay only the justified amount and dispute the rest.
Personally, I lean towards option 2, since there is a valid claim. However, part of the invoice is, in my opinion, unjustified (which will probably lead to discussions). Therefore, I am not sure if it might be better to withhold payment entirely at first.
Does anyone have experience with this?
We have received an invoice from a trade contractor that includes items which are not justified. What is the best way to handle this situation? Here are the options I currently see:
1. Pay nothing and dispute the invoice.
2. Pay only the justified amount and dispute the rest.
Personally, I lean towards option 2, since there is a valid claim. However, part of the invoice is, in my opinion, unjustified (which will probably lead to discussions). Therefore, I am not sure if it might be better to withhold payment entirely at first.
Does anyone have experience with this?
B
Bauherr am L20 Jan 2021 21:49The situation is more complex. There have already been disputes, so I’m just trying to understand whether option 1 or 2 would be better:
On one hand, I am willing to pay the justified portion, but I also don’t want to shoot myself in the foot if there is no understanding on the other side.
On one hand, I am willing to pay the justified portion, but I also don’t want to shoot myself in the foot if there is no understanding on the other side.
H
HilfeHilfe21 Jan 2021 05:552 commissioned, 2 pays if done correctly. However, it’s complicated when 1 was necessary to carry out 2 and you didn’t inform the contractor about 1 when commissioning the work—it will be difficult...
Best example:
I got a new car and only checked the winter tires, not my old aluminum wheels. Drove over, the workshop had trouble putting the wheels on because of tread depth. They took them off and said I should have checked the rim tread depth. They didn’t want any money, but I gave them something anyway because it was my mistake.
What I mean is, without knowing the exact case, either 1 or 2 or both could be correct 🙂
And in court, you’re basically on unsteady ground anyway.
Best example:
I got a new car and only checked the winter tires, not my old aluminum wheels. Drove over, the workshop had trouble putting the wheels on because of tread depth. They took them off and said I should have checked the rim tread depth. They didn’t want any money, but I gave them something anyway because it was my mistake.
What I mean is, without knowing the exact case, either 1 or 2 or both could be correct 🙂
And in court, you’re basically on unsteady ground anyway.
B
Bauherr am L21 Jan 2021 06:04Exactly, the question of whether a claim is justified or not is too complex for a forum.
In any case, I wonder if, in such a situation, one should generally reject the entire invoice and pay nothing, or pay the undisputed portion and reject the rest.
The tendency here seems to lean towards the second option.
In any case, I wonder if, in such a situation, one should generally reject the entire invoice and pay nothing, or pay the undisputed portion and reject the rest.
The tendency here seems to lean towards the second option.