At this point we publish current opinions on construction, crafts and real estate once a month. They always contain the source as well as a brief assessment by our editorial team of what consequences these judgments have and what consequences this could have for our readers. We expressly point out that this is not legal advice. If you have further questions about these judgments, approved persons under the Legal Services Act (RDG) can be contacted.
Bild: pixabay.com / AJEL
Sometimes courts also have to deal with rather strange issues, such as whether or not there is a lot of snowfall in an area of Germany. This does not seem to be the case in the Ruhr area, according to the following judgment.
No snow guards in the pot
In the Ruhr area there is no obligation to install snow guards on roofs, even if the climate changes. Likewise, warning signs do not have to be put up if the danger of snow falling is obvious and recognizable to everyone, including the person affected, according to the Hamm Higher Regional Court (7 U 72/22 of February 29, 2024).
The court decided that the plaintiff in this case had no contractual claims or a claim for damages because no traffic safety obligation had been violated. She had argued that she had parked her vehicle properly and did not have to expect an accident due to roof avalanches. However, the court found that the danger posed by the heavy snowfall was apparent to them and it was their responsibility to choose a safer parking position.
Homeowners’ associations (WEG) are special constructs that also concern the courts in large numbers. The following case addressed the question of whether a developer must complete a residential complex for a WEG.
Lawsuit against property developer for completion justified
If a developer fails to complete construction of a condominium community, buyers may legally require the developer to complete the work. A lawsuit is already possible if the contract clearly states which services the property developer must provide. It is not necessary to document the current construction progress. Buyers also have the option of suing only for certain outstanding construction works instead of demanding the completion of the entire project, according to the Berlin Court of Appeal (21 U 131/23 of July 16, 2024).
The plaintiffs, a WEG, had sued the developer for the completion of certain services such as facade work, the construction of balconies and the installation of elevators. The court found that the plaintiffs could demand this work because it was clearly stipulated in the contract. The defendant had argued that it was only obliged to complete the entire project and not to carry out individual works. The court contradicted this opinion and confirmed that buyers – in this case WEG – are also allowed to sue for individual construction services.
The energy transition also requires the courts to approach issues that were previously unknown, such as the installation of battery storage systems.
If battery storage is subsequently installed, the purchase contract applies
A contract for the subsequent installation of a battery storage system to be delivered is usually viewed as a purchase contract with an obligation to install and not as a work contract, according to the Saarbrücken Higher Regional Court (2 U 75/23 of August 6, 2024).
The dispute concerned the reversal of a contract for the delivery and installation of a battery storage system for a photovoltaic system. The plaintiff wanted to cancel the contract because, contrary to the promise, the battery storage could not be expanded. However, the court ruled that it was a purchase agreement and the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred.
Finally, another classic in construction law: the upper construction cost limits.
Clearly regulate upper construction costs
An architect is not obliged to determine or control costs in the planning phase if the client is already informed about the costs through previous plans by another architect. The client can only assert claims against the architect due to excessive costs if a specific upper construction cost limit has been agreed. If only a cost framework has been set, the architect has a tolerance of up to 30%, according to the Munich Higher Regional Court (20 U 6700/21 Bau from May 23, 2022).
The dispute revolved around an architect’s fee claims. The defendant commissioned the architect to provide planning services, whereupon the architect issued an invoice for 92,716 euros. The defendant claimed that a cost cap had been agreed which the architect had exceeded. However, the court decided that no binding cost cap had been agreed and the defendant was therefore not entitled to reimbursement of the costs.
