ᐅ Living area approximately 8 m² smaller in the permit drawings compared to the design (general contractor)

Hmm, I think you are on the right track, but I also feel you’re approaching this too tensely. You’re already risking gastritis by thinking about contract termination, court, lawyer, etc., even though you haven’t even spoken to the general contractor yet.

I get the impression you found a good general contractor, local, medium-sized, maybe even owner-operated with 1-2 in-house trades? With a bit of luck, they’ll communicate directly and clearly — then they’ll tell you whether it’s acceptable for them financially or if they expect to be paid for it.

Once you have the options on the table, you can make your decision.

No worries — they’re not running their business just to trick you...

11ant schrieb:

Please do not spread defamatory statements here! I was appointed as the restructuring manager of an aluminum window factory too late. Afterwards, I ran a window retail business that was sold. My official successor failed to register properly and led the company into bankruptcy during the COVID-19 pandemic, and now I am incorrectly listed as the last CEO in the commercial register. That is unfortunate—but it does not give you a free pass to add slanderous remarks!
Management consulting with satisfied clients since 1992—that’s something you can try to match first.

Oh, I didn’t know about the CEO issue—I had assumed it referred to something else. But it’s interesting what you learn here. You definitely share a lot of information, going back to before the pandemic.

As I also wrote to you in the private message: just stop. Your condescending opinion is neither law nor the only correct approach. Your often empty, arrogant style of writing doesn’t exactly contribute to a constructive discussion either.

Occasionally you do offer genuinely useful advice—no question about that. But the original poster has a problem, and you present it as if it were entirely their fault. That is neither fair nor helpful, especially since they even provided the contracts.

I am wondering how the original poster is supposed to deal with the general contractor if the detailed planning for the staircase, ventilation, plumbing, and similar elements results in a reduction of the floor area because a corresponding shaft or an expansion of the stairwell opening needs to be planned.

The situation is being blown out of proportion here, while the main recommendation is to "communicate with each other without aggression" and not start thinking about lawyers or other issues at this stage.

Like @Gerddieter, I also have the feeling that a good general contractor was actually hired, and such a relationship shouldn’t be damaged right away.

Arauki11 schrieb:

(...)
Assuming a lack of motivation from a distance is a direct accusation. It could be due to laziness, greed, or other explainable reasons.

That doesn’t and shouldn’t matter to the customer.
I say this with over 15 years of experience as a supplier of custom equipment.

You have sold something and must deliver it, regardless of whether you are dealing with depression, alcoholism, lack of staff, capacity, or simply no motivation.

The customer isn’t interested in that. And they shouldn’t be.

MachsSelbst schrieb:

That should and must be irrelevant to the customer.
I say this with over 15 years of experience as a supplier of custom systems.
If you have sold something, you have to deliver it, regardless of whether you are currently suffering from depression, alcoholism, lack staff, lack capacity, or simply don’t feel like it.
The customer doesn’t care. Nor should they have to.

I did not mean that the original poster (OP) should accept a mistake or shortcoming from the general contractor (GC) that is disadvantageous to them; obviously not. However, there are many factors in such a previous negotiation – which we don’t know – about which it is better to understand both sides in order to assess the situation.
Currently, some assume that the GC deliberately tried to deceive the OP. If I reached such a conclusion, I would at least cut ties. But then what? I asked the OP about this and other matters, but received no answer; from that and my previous post, I might just as well conclude that the OP isn’t very thorough in comprehensive and specific communication and tends to see only their own perspective. This kind of thing often happens in conversations, where everyone believes they have said everything, and yet each party has heard something different.
I think this is something you, with your 15 years of experience, have repeatedly encountered as well.
For me, the key question is not who is right here, but what you do, even if you are right, because in the end, a house needs to be built. From the quoted text of the GC, I also read that they apparently put constructive thought into the floor plan, which the OP seems less interested in.
A good friend of mine always quotes her favorite saying: “He who talks has the right.” Everyone can always present their side as correct, so it’s important to know both sides.
It starts with the fact that the OP, as a long-time reader, should have known that as a layperson they would get into trouble. But it seems that they also didn’t want to hear critical voices, which they would have received if they had posted their project here.

ITSM2025 schrieb:

Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for some time now) and assumed I could rely on the GC’s planning. Unfortunately, it’s already starting off “fun” from the beginning.

In my opinion, the OP does not understand that praise and agreement won’t help them, even if they are right. They could have learned from the existing knowledge here how to handle this situation skillfully and with better chances of success. But they preferred to be reassured that they were right:

ITSM2025 schrieb:

I don’t know whether I’m right to be upset or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry.

tomtom79 schrieb:

Your condescending opinion is neither law nor the only correct approach. Even your often content-light, arrogant manner of writing does not exactly contribute to a constructive discussion.
Occasionally, you do have genuinely useful tips – no question about that.

I find it more arrogant to suggest that I only have “occasionally” genuinely useful tips or that my writing is content-light. On the contrary: I rarely just state something; I often explain in detail why something is a fact – so no one has to simply trust the all-knowing 11ant but can understand the reasoning, always happy to explain it understandably to non-experts. For an introductory physics seminar aimed at dispelling the myth of sand-lime brick as the only “sharp tool” against the dreaded noise, the average layperson usually lacks the necessary background.

I am often misunderstood or perceived as unfriendly in real life as well; this is unavoidable in communication across the Asperger’s / neurotypical boundary. And on the internet, where the acoustic, body language, facial expression, and similar dimensions are completely missing from purely written communication, I have to endure even more misunderstandings. But should I really refrain from sharing my expertise just because my direct Berliner manner gets taken the wrong way in standard German?

tomtom79 schrieb:

But the original poster has a problem, and you present it as if he is to blame himself.

The original poster is dealing with a misunderstanding with their general contractor (GC), which emotionally looks like a problem, nothing more. “Blame” is a strong, harsh, and incorrect word for the shared contributions of both sides to a misunderstanding. The fact is that there was a change between what was interpreted as the agreed drawing representing the subject of the construction contract and a preliminary version of the building permit / planning permission drawings. This change was unexpected and confusing for the original poster as a layperson. The only “blame” he has is for his attitude toward the GC, feeling “tricked,” and now filing a consumer protection asylum request here in the forum, which is factually unnecessary (as demonstrated in the example of the change to the transverse gable, where the GC has already proven not to be a crafty customer trapper). I then explained to the original poster the technical context of the conflict from a construction point of view and that a draftsman – just like the original poster himself, also a layperson – is not trained to recognize this complication early on. Just as the original poster presumably did not deliberately and maliciously task the GC with an impossible assignment (build the exterior walls with EH40 and sand-lime brick in the caliber 425), the GC would not have been rubbing their hands in triumph either (ah great, I’ll fill the footprint with cheap stones and save expensive interior finishes by reducing living space, that’s what he wants). Rather, the GC met the customer requirements for EH40 and sand-lime brick, which in the “magic triangle” led to sacrificing the third parameter, caliber 425, and properly increased the overall wall thickness by a quantum leap to caliber 490. Up to this point, the original poster and the GC agree quite well. Then the GC merely – and here I am convinced that any suspicion of malicious intent is misplaced! – chose the unexpected / different (I consider calling it “wrong” inappropriate here) option with a 50/50 chance to place the difference on the room side. The original poster would have preferred it on the exterior side. That—and nothing more—is the whole crux of the matter here. There is absolutely no reason to dig up an axe to bury. Clarify the misunderstanding, laugh about it together, and shake hands—that could be resolved in a single moment.

My expertise and my experience as a moderator (and in serious cases, an advocate for the client) then motivated me to suggest to the original poster that he could entirely defuse the conflict he unknowingly triggered by simply switching the structural wall component without disadvantage (because compared to aerated concrete, the sand-lime brick here brings no advantage but a significant U-value disadvantage, unlike a specially unfilled porous brick, where I would see this differently). However, he does not want to do this. Apparently, his sense of having been tricked is more important to him than adopting a solution-oriented approach and recognizing that no one intends harm and that (in my opinion) the better way lies outside the battlefield. There are enough experts so I don’t have to believe this without a second opinion. I do not accept the accusation of arrogance for that.

---

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