Construction agreement or friends service

MASTERPIECE - MR. BETTINA HERTSTEIN

It was many years of cozy camping. They had become close friends. When she divorced her husband, the loyal camping neighbor was there to help her. He went with her for the viewing of her new home and, after the purchase, installed two skylights and eight recessed spotlights in the addition. Pretty soon after that, the friendship fell apart.

What had happened. With the best of intentions, the parties discussed the work and the helpful friend started. Through WhatsApp, they kept in touch in good harmony about the purchase price of the skylights and spotlights and their installation. However, within a month of the installation of the domes, the woman does report that water remains on them. In response, the friend says that in case of heavy rainfall, it may happen that some water stays on it because it is a flat glass dome but because of the small drainage holes it will not cause any problems. Sad but unfortunate for parties: so it did. Two years later and many other works further on, the WhatsApp discussion turns into reproaches to each other. The woman has called in several experts to give an opinion particularly on the points that water remains on the domes and that there is sagging of the roof because when the roof structure was modified, no reinforcement was added to the main beams. She notifies the friend, "Roof dome not properly installed" to which he apps back "What do I do with this? Take this for your information. Have a nice day".

That the sociability of the neighboring families under the tent awnings has ended for good is evident when the woman calls in her legal aid insurer. Who writes to her campmate of yore, as follows: "I request you to repair the roof of the extension within 14 days from today (...). After two more reminders by registered mail and e-mail - to which he did not respond - the legal expenses insurer states that his client will have the work repaired by a third party and that she will recover the costs, including the previously claimed (consequential) damages, from him.

After the parties hammered the pegs firmly into the ground, they were ready for the storm. Among other things, the woman claims (substitute) damages in the district court. She argues that her defendant's camping neighbor has failed to comply with the building contract. The defendant disputes that the parties entered into a building contract. According to him, there was a service of friends. For the skylights and spotlights, he advanced the material costs, which were reimbursed by plaintiff. No arrangements for hours or compensation were made. For later work such as for the attic and shed, he did make arrangements for payment of hours. The defendant also disputes that there was any faulty work.

The district judge considered that a friends' service is a simple promise of help in the private sphere that should not be considered a contract. As to whether there is a friends' service or a contract for work, the main point of dispute between the parties is whether it was their intention for the defendant to receive compensation for his work other than the reimbursement of material costs advanced by him. The plaintiff believes that the WhatsApp messages with the defendant agreed that compensation would be paid. The messages referred to "hours. She argues that she kept track of those hours but that is all disputed by the defendant with reasons. The Subdistrict Court held that where the WhatsApp messages speak of 'hours,' they refer to hours kept by the defendant for his other subsequent work and do not refer to compensation for the domes and spots. Those later work were arguably subject to compensation agreements at the time. The plaintiff has not sufficiently substantiated that compensation for hours was agreed upon for the work on the addition. The Subdistrict Court considered that gradually the relationship between the parties had changed and that possibly the agreements between the parties had changed from a favored service to a contract for work. In any case, the Subdistrict Court is of the opinion that the work on the skylights and spotlights was performed as a favored service. Since there is no agreement between the parties, there cannot be a breach of that agreement either. The plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

The end of a friendship, no agreement reached, and various additional costs was the outcome of the parties' undoubtedly originally good intentions. The value of friendship knows no price. Know where you stand when you start (re)building and inquire about the possibilities for metal window and façade elements with the members of the VMRG. By the way: concluding an agreement does not have to stand in the way of friendship.