{"id":6728,"date":"2024-11-13T09:36:12","date_gmt":"2024-11-13T08:36:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atb.law\/?post_type=blog-post&p=6728"},"modified":"2026-05-20T11:30:43","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T09:30:43","slug":"developers-dispute-regarding-delay-in-rectification-upon-notice-of-defects","status":"publish","type":"blog-post","link":"https:\/\/atb.law\/en\/blog-post\/bautraegerstreit-verbesserungsverzug-bei-maengelruege\/","title":{"rendered":"Developer dispute \u2013 Delay in remediation for defect claims?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Background of the case<\/strong><\/h2>\n

A married couple purchased a newly built house from a property developer. More than a year after the handover, they submitted two private expert reports revealing defects in the thermal insulation. The defendants, the developer and its subcontractor, did not fundamentally dispute the defects, but demanded an assessment by a court-sworn expert.<\/p>\n

Key legal issues<\/strong><\/h2>\n

A key question was whether the defendants were in default of remediation, which the Supreme Court explicitly denied. This is an important point for project owners: a default of remediation does not occur automatically when defects are reported.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court also emphasized that a notice of defects must be formulated specifically. The submission of private expert opinions alone is not sufficient. Building owners should therefore precisely describe defects and set exact requirements for remediation.<\/p>\n

Another interesting aspect is the issue of loss of trust. The Supreme Court confirmed that a qualified loss of trust must exist in order to refuse improvement by the developer. Mere defectiveness of the performance is generally not sufficient for this.<\/p>\n

Insights for builders<\/strong><\/h2>\n