A dispute over EUR 12,463: safety nets and hourly work
The contractor carried out roofing works under a VOB/B contract. After completion it claimed, among other things, EUR 7,026.73 net for roofers’ safety netting (Dachdeckerfangschutz) as extra work and EUR 3,631.76 net for work charged on an hourly basis. The hourly work had allegedly been ordered by the owner’s site manager because parts of the works had to be redone due to planning deficiencies. The site manager signed the timesheets and raised no objections when checking the final invoice.
The owner refused to pay and argued that hourly work had never been commissioned. The Regional Court of Cottbus dismissed the claim (4 O 71/21) and the OLG Brandenburg unanimously rejected the appeal by court order under sec. 522(2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure. The amount in dispute on appeal was EUR 12,463.15.
Safety nets included: the specifications were clear
The first claim failed because of a single clause in the specifications (Leistungsverzeichnis), quoted by the court:
„Die Herstellung und das Vorhalten von Schutz- und Arbeitsgerüsten sowie sonstiger Sicherungsmaßnahmen die zur Durchführung der Arbeiten im Rahmen der Unfallverhütungsvorschriften notwendig sind, sind Sache des Auftragnehmers und sind in die Einzelpreise einzukalkulieren.”
In English: providing and maintaining protective and working scaffolding as well as other safety measures required under accident prevention rules is the contractor’s responsibility and must be included in the unit prices. Safety nets in roofing works are exactly such a measure, so there was no room for extra remuneration.
Unclear specifications are the bidder’s risk
The contractor argued that before submitting its bid it had been told that scaffolding would be awarded separately. The court left this open, because even then the outcome would not change:
„Stellt sich nach der gebotenen Vertragsauslegung aber heraus, dass er nach dem Vertrag eine Leistung schuldet, die er infolge der Unklarheit oder Unvollständigkeit der Leistungsbeschreibung nicht einkalkuliert hat, kann er von den Gerichten keine Korrektur seiner für ihn nachteiligen Vertragsentscheidung verlangen.”
In English: if the interpretation of the contract shows that the contractor owes work which it failed to price in because the specifications were unclear or incomplete, it cannot ask the courts to correct its own disadvantageous contractual decision. The court relied on established case law of the Federal Court of Justice cited in the reasons (including the judgment of 13 March 2008, VII ZR 194/06). A bidder who notices gaps must raise questions before submitting the bid. Here this was all the more compelling as the disputed claim amounted to roughly 20 per cent of the entire order volume. The court also noted that the substantive content of specifications is not subject to judicial review of standard business terms (AGB).
The site manager’s signature is not an acknowledgement
The key part for everyday practice concerns the hourly work. The site manager had ordered the work, signed the timesheets and checked the final invoice. None of this helped, because the site manager
„weder über eine Vollmacht verfügte noch eine solche unter Rechtsscheinsgesichtspunkten vorlag” — he neither held a power of attorney nor did one exist under the principles of apparent authority.
Supervising the works does not make the site manager the owner’s legal representative. His signature on a timesheet is neither an acknowledgement of the claim nor proof of the hours actually worked, and it does not replace an agreement on hourly remuneration. An unobjected final invoice check changes nothing either. The burden of proving that hourly work was agreed and performed remains entirely with the contractor — how the burden of proof works on German construction projects is covered in our article on the burden of proof.
VOB/B: hourly work must be agreed before it starts
Under sec. 2(10) VOB/B, hourly work is remunerated only if it was expressly agreed as such before it began. Sec. 15(3) VOB/B additionally requires the contractor to give notice before starting and to submit timesheets on an ongoing basis, which the owner must return signed within six working days. Sheets not returned in time are generally deemed acknowledged. This deemed acknowledgement, however, only works vis-à-vis the owner or a person with actual authority. In the case decided, only the unauthorised site manager had signed — so the fiction never came into play. How to price and document extra work (Nachtrag) properly is covered separately.
Before you bill hourly work on a German site
Read the entire specifications before bidding — clauses on scaffolding, safety measures and occupational safety are usually included in the unit prices. Clarify every ambiguity in writing with the awarding party before submitting the bid and keep the answer. Agree hourly work before it starts with a person authorised to represent the owner (management, authorised officer, holder of a written power of attorney), not with the site manager. At the start of the project, ask in writing which decisions the owner’s site manager may take. Give notice of hourly work under sec. 15(3) VOB/B and submit the timesheets directly to the owner. Document instructions — a short confirmation e-mail is worth more than ten signatures collected on site.
Frequently asked questions
Does a signed timesheet guarantee payment?
No. A timesheet documents hours but does not replace an agreement on hourly billing. If only a site manager without authority signed it, it is generally neither an acknowledgement nor proof of an agreement (OLG Brandenburg, 10 U 84/25).
May a site manager order extra or hourly work?
Not merely because he supervises the works. Binding the owner requires a power of attorney. Without it, his instructions do not oblige the owner.
What should bidders do about unclear specifications?
Ask the awarding party in writing before bidding. Whoever bids despite recognisable gaps assumes the risk — courts will not correct a disadvantageous calculation later.
Who must prove that hourly work was agreed?
The contractor. Signatures of an unauthorised site manager do not shift the burden of proof to the owner.
Can specifications be challenged like standard terms (AGB)?
No. The substantive provisions of specifications are not subject to review of standard business terms.
Basis: decision of the OLG Brandenburg of 12 May 2026, 10 U 84/25 (previously Regional Court of Cottbus, 4 O 71/21), sec. 2(10) and sec. 15(3) VOB/B. Quotations are taken from the reasons of the decision. Status: July 2026. This article is for general information and does not replace legal advice in an individual case.