{"id":5123,"date":"2026-10-20T09:14:36","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T07:14:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-section-2-pricing\/"},"modified":"2026-10-20T10:21:49","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T08:21:49","slug":"vob-b-section-2-pricing","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-section-2-pricing\/","title":{"rendered":"VOB\/B Section 2: payment and variation claims from tender to final invoice"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<div id=\"progress\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/div>\r\n\r\n<header>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/\" class=\"brand\" aria-label=\"BWLAW \u2013 home\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"BWLAW \u2013 law firm in Germany\" width=\"42\" height=\"28\"><\/a>\r\n    <nav aria-label=\"Main navigation\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Companies<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/\">Cars<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\" class=\"active\">Knowledge base<\/a>\r\n    <\/nav>\r\n    <div class=\"lang\" role=\"group\" aria-label=\"Language\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-section-2-pricing\/\" class=\"active\" lang=\"en\" hreflang=\"en\" aria-current=\"true\">EN<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/wissen\/vob-b-paragraf-2-verguetung\/\" lang=\"de\" hreflang=\"de\" aria-label=\"German version of this article\">DE<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/pl\/baza-wiedzy\/vob-b-paragraf-2-wynagrodzenie\/\" lang=\"pl\" hreflang=\"pl\" aria-label=\"Polish version of this article\">PL<\/a>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n    <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Contact us <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n    <button class=\"burger\" aria-label=\"Menu\">\u2630<\/button>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"shero\" style=\"padding-bottom:3.5rem\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\" style=\"grid-template-columns:1fr\">\r\n    <div>\r\n      <nav class=\"crumbs\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/\">Home<\/a><span>\/<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><span>\/<\/span><b>Construction<\/b><\/nav>\r\n      <a class=\"serie-pill\" href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-german-construction-contract\/\" title=\"Go to the series guide\"><b>\u00a7<\/b><span>Series: VOB\/B clause by clause<\/span><span class=\"ep\">part 1 of 18<\/span><\/a>\r\n      <h1 style=\"max-width:34ch\">VOB\/B Section 2: payment and variation claims from tender to final invoice<\/h1>\r\n      <p class=\"lead\">A unit price is born at the estimator&#8217;s desk. The contract fixes it, and on site it has to prove itself. Something nearly always changes before the final invoice (Schlussrechnung): the measurement turns out differently, the employer sends new drawings, the ground does not behave as the report described, or material prices jump. Section 2 VOB\/B decides what happens to the agreed price at each of these moments. This provision opens our <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-german-construction-contract\/\">series \u201cVOB\/B clause by clause\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n      <div class=\"art-meta\">\r\n        <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr Artur Barczewski\" width=\"46\" height=\"46\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n        <div><b>Dr Artur Barczewski<\/b>niedergelassener europ\u00e4ischer Rechtsanwalt \/ Radca prawny<\/div>\r\n        <div style=\"margin-left:1rem;border-left:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.25);padding-left:1rem\">\u2248 60 min read<br>updated: October 2026<\/div>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<article class=\"sec\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n<style><style>\r\n.bwsum{margin:2.4rem 0 2.8rem;border:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6);border-radius:22px;background:var(--ivory,#FAF7F3);padding:clamp(1.1rem,3vw,1.7rem);color:var(--ink,#161513);font-family:var(--font-body)}\r\n.bwsum__eye{font-family:var(--font-accent);font-size:.68rem;letter-spacing:.16em;text-transform:uppercase;color:var(--terra,#C25531);font-weight:700;margin:0}\r\n.bwsum__t{font-family:var(--font-head);font-size:clamp(1.05rem,2.4vw,1.25rem);font-weight:700;line-height:1.3;margin:.35rem 0 1.1rem;color:var(--ink,#161513)}\r\n.bwsum__grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(150px,1fr));gap:.7rem}\r\n.bwsum__grid--2{grid-template-columns:repeat(2,minmax(0,1fr))}\r\n.bwsum__risk{display:grid;grid-template-columns:8px 1fr;gap:0 .9rem;margin-bottom:.8rem}\r\n.bwsum__risk .bwsum__vbar{border-radius:8px;background:linear-gradient(180deg,var(--terra,#C25531),#E8946B 50%,var(--ink,#161513))}\r\n.bwsum__risk .bwsum__lbl{font-size:.72rem;font-weight:700;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.08em;margin:.1rem 0 .35rem}\r\n.bwsum__row{display:grid;grid-template-columns:minmax(120px,170px) 1fr;gap:.2rem .9rem;align-items:baseline;background:#fff;border:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6);border-radius:14px;padding:.6rem .85rem;margin-bottom:.45rem}\r\n.bwsum__row b{color:var(--ink,#161513);font-family:var(--font-head);font-size:.93rem}\r\n.bwsum__row span{font-size:.84rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);line-height:1.45}\r\n.bwsum__row .bwsum__p{margin:0 0 0 .35rem}\r\n.bwsum__c{background:#fff;border:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6);border-radius:16px;padding:.85rem .95rem;line-height:1.45}\r\n.bwsum__c b{display:block;color:var(--ink,#161513);font-size:.95rem;margin:.4rem 0 .25rem;font-family:var(--font-head)}\r\n.bwsum__c span,.bwsum__c li{font-size:.84rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);hyphens:auto;overflow-wrap:break-word}\r\n.bwsum__c b{hyphens:auto;overflow-wrap:break-word}\r\n.bwsum__c ul{margin:.3rem 0 0 1rem;padding:0;list-style:disc}\r\n.bwsum__n{display:inline-flex;width:1.75rem;height:1.75rem;border-radius:50%;background:var(--terra,#C25531);color:#fff;font-weight:700;font-size:.85rem;align-items:center;justify-content:center;font-family:var(--font-head)}\r\n.bwsum__p{display:inline-block;margin-top:.5rem;font-size:.72rem;font-weight:600;color:var(--terra-dark,#A84425);background:rgba(194,85,49,.09);border-radius:999px;padding:.14rem .6rem}\r\n.bwsum__dark{background:var(--ink,#161513);border-color:var(--ink,#161513)}\r\n.bwsum__dark b{color:#fff}.bwsum__dark span{color:rgba(255,255,255,.78)}\r\n.bwsum__axis{display:flex;justify-content:space-between;gap:1rem;font-size:.74rem;font-weight:600;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);margin:0 0 .45rem}\r\n.bwsum__grad{height:6px;border-radius:6px;background:linear-gradient(90deg,var(--terra,#C25531),#E8946B 50%,var(--ink,#161513));margin-bottom:.8rem}\r\n.bwsum__bar{display:flex;border-radius:12px;overflow:hidden;font-size:.8rem;font-weight:700;color:#fff;text-align:center;margin:.2rem 0 .35rem}\r\n.bwsum__bar div{padding:.75rem .4rem;line-height:1.25}\r\n.bwsum__ticks{display:flex;font-size:.72rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);margin-bottom:1rem}\r\n.bwsum__ticks span{text-align:right}\r\n.bwsum__note{margin:.9rem 0 0;font-size:.8rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);line-height:1.5}\r\n.bwsum__warn{margin-top:.8rem;border-left:4px solid var(--terra,#C25531);background:#fff;border-radius:0 12px 12px 0;padding:.65rem .9rem;font-size:.86rem;color:var(--ink,#161513)}\r\n.bwsum__flow{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(150px,1fr));gap:.7rem;counter-reset:s}\r\n.bwsum__flow .bwsum__c{position:relative}\r\n.bwsum__tbl{width:100%;border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0;font-size:.84rem;background:#fff;border:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6);border-radius:16px;overflow:hidden}\r\n.bwsum__tbl th{background:var(--ink,#161513);color:#fff;text-align:left;font-weight:600;padding:.55rem .7rem;font-size:.76rem;letter-spacing:.02em}\r\n.bwsum__tbl td{padding:.55rem .7rem;border-top:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6);vertical-align:top;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642)}\r\n.bwsum__tbl td:nth-child(2){font-weight:700;color:var(--ink,#161513);white-space:nowrap}\r\n.bwsum__yes{color:var(--terra-dark,#A84425);font-weight:700}\r\n.bwsum__tl{list-style:none;margin:0;padding:0 0 0 1.2rem;border-left:3px solid var(--terra,#C25531)}\r\n.bwsum__tl li{position:relative;margin:0 0 .85rem;padding-left:.7rem;font-size:.88rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);line-height:1.45}\r\n.bwsum__tl li:before{content:\"\";position:absolute;left:-1.72rem;top:.25rem;width:.85rem;height:.85rem;border-radius:50%;background:var(--ivory,#FAF7F3);border:3px solid var(--terra,#C25531)}\r\n.bwsum__tl li.bwsum__end:before{background:var(--terra,#C25531)}\r\n.bwsum__tl b{color:var(--ink,#161513);font-family:var(--font-head)}\r\n.bwsum__formula{font-family:var(--font-head);font-size:1.5rem;font-weight:700;color:var(--terra,#C25531);letter-spacing:.02em;margin:.2rem 0}\r\n@media (max-width:560px){.bwsum__row{grid-template-columns:1fr}}\r\n@media (max-width:560px){.bwsum__flow,.bwsum__grid{grid-template-columns:1fr}.bwsum__bar{font-size:.68rem}.bwsum__tbl thead{display:none}.bwsum__tbl,.bwsum__tbl tbody,.bwsum__tbl tr,.bwsum__tbl td{display:block;width:auto}.bwsum__tbl tr{border-top:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6);padding:.55rem .75rem}.bwsum__tbl tr:first-child{border-top:0}.bwsum__tbl td{border:0;padding:.08rem 0;white-space:normal}.bwsum__tbl td:nth-child(1){color:var(--ink,#161513)}.bwsum__tbl td[data-l]:before{content:attr(data-l) \": \";font-weight:600;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642)}}\r\n<\/style><\/style>\r\n<style>\r\n.prose .bwceo{margin:2rem 0 1.6rem;background:var(--ink,#161513);color:#fff;border-radius:22px;padding:clamp(1.2rem,3.2vw,1.9rem);position:relative;overflow:hidden}.prose .bwceo:after{content:\"\";position:absolute;right:-60px;top:-60px;width:220px;height:220px;border-radius:50%;background:radial-gradient(circle,rgba(194,85,49,.35),rgba(194,85,49,0) 70%)}.prose .bwceo__eye{font-family:var(--font-accent);font-size:.68rem;letter-spacing:.16em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#E8946B;font-weight:700;margin:0}.prose .bwceo__t{font-family:var(--font-head);font-size:clamp(1.1rem,2.6vw,1.35rem);font-weight:700;margin:.35rem 0 1.1rem;color:#fff;line-height:1.3}.prose .bwceo__list{list-style:none;margin:0;padding:0;display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(2,minmax(0,1fr));gap:.75rem;position:relative;z-index:1}.prose .bwceo__list li{background:rgba(255,255,255,.06);border:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.12);border-radius:16px;padding:.85rem .95rem;font-size:.88rem;line-height:1.5;color:rgba(255,255,255,.82)}.prose .bwceo__list li b{display:block;color:#fff;font-family:var(--font-head);font-size:.98rem;margin-bottom:.25rem}.prose .bwceo__list li .bwceo__n{display:inline-flex;width:1.6rem;height:1.6rem;border-radius:50%;background:var(--terra,#C25531);color:#fff;font-weight:700;font-size:.8rem;align-items:center;justify-content:center;margin-bottom:.45rem}.prose .bwceo__list a{color:#E8946B;font-weight:600;text-decoration:none;font-size:.8rem;white-space:nowrap}.prose .bwceo__foot{margin:1rem 0 0;font-size:.8rem;color:rgba(255,255,255,.6);position:relative;z-index:1}.prose .bwchk{margin:2.4rem 0 2.8rem;border:2px solid var(--terra,#C25531);border-radius:22px;background:#fff;padding:clamp(1.1rem,3vw,1.7rem)}.prose .bwchk__eye{font-family:var(--font-accent);font-size:.68rem;letter-spacing:.16em;text-transform:uppercase;color:var(--terra,#C25531);font-weight:700;margin:0}.prose .bwchk__t{font-family:var(--font-head);font-size:clamp(1.05rem,2.4vw,1.25rem);font-weight:700;margin:.35rem 0 .3rem;color:var(--ink,#161513)}.prose .bwchk__intro{font-size:.88rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);margin:0 0 1rem}.prose .bwchk__q{border:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6);border-radius:14px;padding:.7rem .9rem;margin:0 0 .55rem;background:var(--ivory,#FAF7F3)}.prose .bwchk__q legend{float:left;width:100%;padding:0;font-size:.9rem;color:var(--ink,#161513);font-weight:600;line-height:1.4;margin-bottom:.45rem}.prose .bwchk__q legend span{display:block;font-weight:400;font-size:.8rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);margin-top:.15rem}.prose .bwchk__opts{clear:both;display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:.45rem}.prose .bwchk__opts label{display:inline-flex;align-items:center;gap:.35rem;border:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6);background:#fff;border-radius:999px;padding:.32rem .85rem;font-size:.84rem;cursor:pointer;color:var(--ink,#161513)}.prose .bwchk__opts input{accent-color:var(--terra,#C25531);margin:0}.prose .bwchk__opts label:has(input:checked){border-color:var(--terra,#C25531);background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);font-weight:600}.prose .bwchk__res{margin-top:1rem;border-radius:16px;padding:1rem 1.1rem;background:var(--ivory,#FAF7F3);border:1px solid var(--line,#E5DED6)}.prose .bwchk__lights{display:flex;gap:.4rem;align-items:center;margin-bottom:.55rem}.prose .bwchk__lights i{display:inline-block;width:1.1rem;height:1.1rem;border-radius:50%;background:#DDD6CE}.prose .bwchk-red .bwchk__lights i.r{background:#B3261E;box-shadow:0 0 0 4px rgba(179,38,30,.15)}.prose .bwchk-yellow .bwchk__lights i.y{background:#D99A1E;box-shadow:0 0 0 4px rgba(217,154,30,.18)}.prose .bwchk-green .bwchk__lights i.g{background:#3E7A4C;box-shadow:0 0 0 4px rgba(62,122,76,.16)}.prose .bwchk__lights span{font-size:.78rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);margin-left:.4rem}.prose .bwchk__rt{font-family:var(--font-head);font-weight:700;font-size:1rem;color:var(--ink,#161513);margin:0 0 .3rem}.prose .bwchk__rx{font-size:.86rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);margin:0}.prose .bwchk__gaps{margin:.6rem 0 0 1.1rem;padding:0;font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink,#161513)}.prose .bwchk__gaps li{margin:.3rem 0}.prose .bwchk__gaps a{color:var(--terra,#C25531);font-weight:600;white-space:nowrap}.prose .bwchk__cta,.prose .bwchk__cta:hover,.prose .bwchk__cta .arr{color:#fff;text-decoration:none}.prose .bwchk__cta{display:inline-block;margin-top:.8rem}.prose .bwchk__note{font-size:.76rem;color:var(--ink-soft,#4A4642);margin:.8rem 0 0}\r\n@media (max-width:600px){.prose .bwceo__list{grid-template-columns:1fr}}\r\n<\/style>\r\n<p>We do not follow the numbering of the ten subsections but the path of a construction project: tender, conclusion of the contract, execution, variation, invoicing and, if there is no other way, dispute. The reason is practical. Many variation lawsuits are not lost on the calculation but months earlier, in a project phase in which nobody was yet thinking of litigation. Anyone who knows when each part of sec. 2 VOB\/B takes effect can set the course while that is still possible.<\/p>\r\n<p>One distinction first. Whether the employer (Auftraggeber) may unilaterally require a change or additional work is governed by sec. 1(3) and (4) VOB\/B. Section 2 VOB\/B concerns the consideration, that is, the remuneration.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn1\" id=\"fnr1\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">1<\/a><\/sup> The limits of the employer&#8217;s right to give instructions are therefore to be found in sec. 1, the consequences for the price in sec. 2.<\/p>\r\n<aside class=\"bwceo\" aria-label=\"The essentials of this article in two minutes\"><p class=\"bwceo__eye\">For management<\/p><p class=\"bwceo__t\">The essentials of this article in two minutes<\/p><ul class=\"bwceo__list\"><li><span class=\"bwceo__n\">1<\/span><b>Give notice before you build<\/b>For additional work, notice before the work starts is a condition of the claim (sec. 2(6) VOB\/B). Team rule: report every deviation in writing to the employer itself before starting. <a href=\"#securing-the-variation-give-notice-make-an-offer-reach-agree\">Part IV \u2192<\/a><\/li><li><span class=\"bwceo__n\">2<\/span><b>Never sign without reservation<\/b>Whoever signs a variation price that is too low without reservation has agreed it. With a reservation that price is not agreed. In the OLG Naumburg case, \u20ac0.28\/m\u00b2 finally became \u20ac0.78\/m\u00b2. <a href=\"#a-project-in-fast-motion-the-olg-naumburg-case\">Part VII \u2192<\/a><\/li><li><span class=\"bwceo__n\">3<\/span><b>The contractual scope decides<\/b>Extra pay is due only if what was built departs from what was owed. Whatever the bill of quantities already covers is paid for in the price. <a href=\"#conclusion-of-the-contract-what-the-price-pays-for\">Part II \u2192<\/a><\/li><li><span class=\"bwceo__n\">4<\/span><b>10 % is the threshold<\/b>Above 110 % either party may demand a new price for the excess quantity, below 90 % the contractor may demand a higher unit price for the whole quantity (sec. 2(3) VOB\/B). <a href=\"#execution-when-reality-departs-from-the-contract\">Part III \u2192<\/a><\/li><li><span class=\"bwceo__n\">5<\/span><b>Prove costs, do not assert them<\/b>Absent another agreement, the actually necessary costs plus reasonable mark-ups apply. Break down extra effort into materials, equipment and labour and keep the original tender calculation. <a href=\"#invoicing-how-the-new-price-is-formed\">Part V \u2192<\/a><\/li><li><span class=\"bwceo__n\">6<\/span><b>Secure liquidity in the first year of a dispute<\/b>The 80 % interim payment, the interim injunction and security (secs. 650c, 650d, 650f BGB) belong at the start of a dispute. A mere price dispute does not justify stopping work. <a href=\"#dispute-liquidity-before-judgment\">Part VI \u2192<\/a><\/li><\/ul><p class=\"bwceo__foot\">Details, exceptions and authorities are in the linked parts.<\/p><\/aside><div style=\"margin:2rem 0 1rem;padding:1.1rem 1.4rem;border:1px solid rgba(0,0,0,.08);border-radius:14px;background:rgba(194,85,49,.04)\"><p style=\"font-weight:700;margin:0 0 .4rem\">Contents<\/p><ol style=\"margin:0 0 0 1.2rem;padding:0;font-size:.95rem\"><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#before-the-contract-tender-and-calculation\">Before the contract: tender and calculation<\/a><\/li><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#conclusion-of-the-contract-what-the-price-pays-for\">Conclusion of the contract: what the price pays for<\/a><\/li><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#execution-when-reality-departs-from-the-contract\">Execution: when reality departs from the contract<\/a><\/li><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#securing-the-variation-give-notice-make-an-offer-reach-agree\">Securing the variation: give notice, make an offer, reach agreement<\/a><\/li><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#invoicing-how-the-new-price-is-formed\">Invoicing: how the new price is formed<\/a><\/li><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#dispute-liquidity-before-judgment\">Dispute: liquidity before judgment<\/a><\/li><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#a-project-in-fast-motion-the-olg-naumburg-case\">A project in fast motion: the OLG Naumburg case<\/a><\/li><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#merkliste\">Checklist by project phase<\/a><\/li><li style=\"margin:.2rem 0\"><a href=\"#fussnoten\">Footnotes<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>\r\n<h3 id=\"before-the-contract-tender-and-calculation\" style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">I. Before the contract: tender and calculation<\/h3>\r\n<h4 id=\"the-form-of-remuneration-allocates-the-risks\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">The form of remuneration allocates the risks<\/h4>\r\n<p>The choice of the form of remuneration already determines who bears which risk. Under sec. 2(2) VOB\/B, the default is invoicing at unit prices according to the quantity actually built, unless the parties agree otherwise. The provision itself names the lump sum, hourly rates and cost reimbursement as alternatives.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn2\" id=\"fnr2\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<ul><li><strong>Unit-price contract (Einheitspreisvertrag):<\/strong> The bill of quantities (Leistungsverzeichnis) contains items with estimated quantities (Vorders\u00e4tze), and payment follows the measurement (Aufma\u00df). If more or less is ultimately built than estimated, this therefore works against or in favour of the employer, within the limits of sec. 2(3) VOB\/B. The contractor (Auftragnehmer) answers for the adequacy of its unit prices and for its own productivity.<\/li><li><strong>Detailed lump-sum contract (Detail-Pauschalvertrag):<\/strong> A detailed description of the works is awarded for a total price. In essence it differs from the unit-price contract only in that no measurement is taken.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn3\" id=\"fnr3\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">3<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li><strong>Global lump-sum contract (Global-Pauschalvertrag):<\/strong> The works are described functionally, classically in turnkey construction. The contractor takes on the detailed design and with it the risk that more material and labour are needed to achieve the described result than expected.<\/li><li><strong>Hourly-rate contract (Stundenlohnvertrag):<\/strong> Payment is for the time spent, not for the result. Because the productivity risk thus in fact lies with the employer, sec. 2(10) and sec. 15 VOB\/B impose special requirements (see Part IV).<\/li><li><strong>Cost reimbursement (cost plus fee):<\/strong> The employer reimburses the proven costs and pays an agreed mark-up. It thereby assumes the price risk for material and labour and gains insight into the costs. Opinions differ on whether this contract form is experiencing a renaissance in times of fluctuating prices or will remain a marginal phenomenon.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn4\" id=\"fnr4\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">4<\/a><\/sup><\/li><\/ul>\r\n<p>Even which form of remuneration applies may be in dispute in court. If the contractor invoices at unit prices and the employer relies on a lump-sum price, the contractor must plead and prove the unit-price agreement. The OLG Brandenburg (Oberlandesgericht, Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg) therefore refused a company payment for additional areas in a roof refurbishment. The contract stated a \u201cfixed remuneration\u201d (Festverg\u00fctung) as a total amount and added that this corresponded to a lump-sum remuneration of \u20ac20.95 per square metre. That a price adjustment clause elsewhere referred to sec. 2 no. 3 VOB\/B (correctly: sec. 2(3)) was not enough for the court. Anyone who wants to invoice by measurement should agree this expressly.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn5\" id=\"fnr5\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">5<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"the-original-tender-calculation-as-the-memory-of-the-price\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">The original tender calculation as the memory of the price<\/h4>\r\n<p>The tender calculation, known as the original tender calculation (Urkalkulation), breaks each unit price down into its components: direct costs of the item, site overheads (Baustellengemeinkosten), general overheads (Allgemeine Gesch\u00e4ftskosten), and risk and profit (Wagnis und Gewinn). As long as everything goes to plan, nobody is interested in it. If a price has to be adjusted, it is often the only document that shows how the price was conceived.<\/p>\r\n<p>Three later situations depend on it. If quantities fall away, sec. 2(3) no. 3 VOB\/B compensates for the overhead allocations that are now spread over a smaller quantity (Part III.1). If the calculation has been deposited as required by the contract, sec. 650c(2) BGB can give the contractor a presumption as to the amount of the variation, although it is disputed whether this also applies in a VOB\/B contract (Part V). And where the parties by agreement carry variations forward from the calculation, it decides every single variation price (Part VII).<\/p>\r\n<p>What the bidder does not write into its prices does not exist for the later adjustment. A case of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) on tree clearing works shows this. The contractor had calculated its costs per tree and deducted from them revenue from the utilisation of the timber, producing a very low unit price. In fact it expected far higher revenue than it had included in the price. When considerably fewer trees had to be felled than tendered, it claimed this further profit expectation as well through the adjustment of the unit price. The BGH accepted only the share of the revenue that had gone into the calculation of the unit price \u2014 in translation: \u201cFactors that are not part of the calculation of the original unit price are disregarded when it is adjusted under sec. 2(3) no. 3 VOB\/B (2012).\u201d Nor did it make any difference that the contractor had disclosed its calculation before the award.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn6\" id=\"fnr6\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">6<\/a><\/sup> In practice this means: draw up the calculation completely and comprehensibly, deposit it if the contract so provides, and keep it until all disputes have ended.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"speculative-unit-prices-and-their-limit\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Speculative unit prices and their limit<\/h4>\r\n<p>Some bidders price against the bill of quantities. A bidder who expects an item to turn out far larger in reality than tendered puts a high price on it and offsets this elsewhere. The BGH sets a limit to this tactic where such a price is carried forward into a variation. If the resulting price stands in a striking disproportion to the work that comes close to usury, the price agreement may to that extent be contrary to public policy and void (sec. 138(1) BGB). Such a disproportion may exist where the price amounts to \u201calmost eight times the customary and reasonable local price\u201d (our translation) and the excess is also significant in absolute terms and in relation to the contract sum. A reprehensible pursuit of profit is presumed from the disproportion, but the presumption is rebuttable. The excessive price is replaced by the customary remuneration.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn7\" id=\"fnr7\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">7<\/a><\/sup> Even where the presumption is rebutted, for example by proof of a calculation error, enforcing the excessive price may breach good faith (sec. 242 BGB).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn8\" id=\"fnr8\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">8<\/a><\/sup> Langen\/Berger consider this line mistaken and would resolve such cases through the doctrine of interference with the basis of the transaction (sec. 313 BGB).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn9\" id=\"fnr9\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">9<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Economically, the tactic has lost its appeal anyway. Since the BGH, absent any other agreement, measures the price for excess quantities above 110% by the costs actually required (Part V), an inflated unit price no longer carries over, precisely in the case of the excess quantity. Langen\/Berger put it that price speculation thus \u201cvanishes into thin air\u201d (our translation), and Bolz regards such cases as largely settled.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn10\" id=\"fnr10\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">10<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"read-the-tender-before-you-price-it\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Read the tender before you price it<\/h4>\r\n<p>What the bidder promises with its price follows from the tender documents, as a competent bidder was entitled to understand them within the tender period. The bidder need not recognise what only an expert could work out after months of studying the files. Langen\/Berger sum this up in the sentence \u2014 in translation: \u201cWhat the bidder does not need to recognise does not even become \u2018Bausoll\u2019 [contractual scope].\u201d<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn11\" id=\"fnr11\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">11<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>This does not mean the bidder is free to pass over ambiguities. According to the case law of the BGH, a bidder must clarify a description of the works that is insufficient for a reliable calculation before submitting its tender and may not content itself with an assumption favourable to itself. Bolz points out that \u201cincomplete\u201d (l\u00fcckenhaft) within the meaning of this case law does not refer to a technically incomplete description but to one that is unclear for pricing purposes.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn12\" id=\"fnr12\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">12<\/a><\/sup> By contrast, there is no duty to point out technical errors or gaps in the bill of quantities at the tender stage. The duty to examine and to notify concerns under sec. 4(3) VOB\/B begins only with the contract.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn13\" id=\"fnr13\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">13<\/a><\/sup> And there is no rule of interpretation under which an unclear contract is to be read against the contractor because it did not clarify the ambiguity.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn14\" id=\"fnr14\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">14<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>This results in a simple division of labour. Searching a design for technical errors is not the bidder&#8217;s task. But if it lacks information it needs for its price, it should ask before submitting its tender. A query costs nothing at this stage, an unclear contract a great deal later.<\/p>\r\n<figure class=\"bwsum\" aria-label=\"Summary of Part I: types of remuneration and calculation\" style=\"margin-left:0;margin-right:0\"><p class=\"bwsum__eye\">Part I at a glance<\/p><p class=\"bwsum__t\">The type of remuneration allocates the risks<\/p><div class=\"bwsum__risk\"><div class=\"bwsum__vbar\"><\/div><div><p class=\"bwsum__lbl\">more risk with the contractor<\/p><div class=\"bwsum__row\"><b>Global lump sum<\/b><span>Functional description. The contractor plans the details and bears the risk of extra effort.<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__row\"><b>Detailed lump sum<\/b><span>Detailed scope for a total price, no measurement.<span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 2(7) VOB\/B<\/span><\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__row\"><b>Unit price<\/b><span>Paid by measurement. Quantity deviations within the limits of sec. 2(3).<span class=\"bwsum__p\">default, sec. 2(2)<\/span><\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__row\"><b>Daywork<\/b><span>Time is paid. The productivity risk in fact lies with the employer.<span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 2(10), sec. 15<\/span><\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__row\"><b>Cost plus fee<\/b><span>Proven costs reimbursed plus a mark-up. Price risk with the employer.<\/span><\/div><p class=\"bwsum__lbl\" style=\"margin:.2rem 0 0\">more risk with the employer<\/p><\/div><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__grid bwsum__grid--2\"><div class=\"bwsum__c bwsum__dark\"><b>Original tender calculation<\/b><span>What is not in the price does not exist for a later adjustment. Prepare it in full, deposit it, keep it.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">BGH VII ZR 157\/20<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c bwsum__dark\"><b>Speculative prices<\/b><span>In case of a usury-like disproportion, for example eight times the usual price, the agreement may be void.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 138 BGB, BGH VII ZR 68\/10<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/figure>\r\n<h3 id=\"conclusion-of-the-contract-what-the-price-pays-for\" style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">II. Conclusion of the contract: what the price pays for<\/h3>\r\n<h4 id=\"the-contractual-scope-as-the-limit-of-any-additional-payment\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">The contractual scope as the limit of any additional payment<\/h4>\r\n<p>Additional remuneration is only available where what is built departs from what is owed. Practice calls the work owed the <strong>Bausoll<\/strong> (contractual scope) and the work actually performed the <strong>Bauist<\/strong>.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn15\" id=\"fnr15\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">15<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who cannot reconstruct the Bausoll from the contract documents cannot substantiate a variation (Nachtrag), because they lack the benchmark. As long as the disputed work lies within the Bausoll, sec. 2 VOB\/B yields not a single additional euro.<\/p>\r\n<p>Where the Bausoll ends is a question of interpretation, and the courts read the bill of quantities through the eyes of a competent, reasonable and objective recipient. The Kammergericht (KG, the Higher Regional Court of Berlin) had to decide on painting works on historic timber box windows in a Berlin school. The bill of quantities provided for a renewal coating outside and an overhaul coating inside, but in describing the work steps mentioned neither the outer side of the frames nor the transoms and mullions. The contractor claimed a variation per window for painting them. The court refused. It was recognisable that all exposed timber parts of the windows were to be treated, it would have made no technical or economic sense to exclude subordinate parts, and the specified colour shade was expressly intended for the mullions as well. What the bill of quantities already covers is paid for by the unit prices and cannot form the subject of a variation.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn16\" id=\"fnr16\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">16<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>What the price pays for is determined by sec. 2(1) VOB\/B through a catalogue of sources: the description of the works, the special, additional and additional technical conditions of contract, VOB\/C with its general technical specifications (ATV), and finally commercial custom. Two consequences matter in practice. The ancillary works (Nebenleistungen) listed in sections 4.1 of the individual ATV DIN standards are paid for by the price without a separate item. The special works (Besondere Leistungen) listed in sections 4.2, by contrast, only form part of the contractual works if the description of the works expressly mentions them. If the employer requires such work only during execution, it must be paid for additionally under sec. 2(6) VOB\/B. Langen\/Berger consider prior notice (Ank\u00fcndigung) exceptionally unnecessary in this case, but advisable.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn17\" id=\"fnr17\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">17<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Employers occasionally try to shift special works into the prices across the board. As an example of an invalid clause, Langen\/Berger cite the requirement that \u201copenings and chases as instructed by the site manager\u201d (our translation) are to be included in the price.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn18\" id=\"fnr18\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">18<\/a><\/sup> Without quantities and without drawings, such effort cannot be priced. As early as 1987, the OLG M\u00fcnchen struck down a clause under which the \u201cmaking and closing of all recesses and chases in foundations, walls, slabs etc. according to drawings and instructions of the site manager\u201d (our translation) was to be owed without separate payment. What mattered was that the scope of the work owed depended on the discretion of the site management and could not be calculated.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn19\" id=\"fnr19\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">19<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"what-is-built-and-under-what-conditions\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">What is built and under what conditions<\/h4>\r\n<p>The Bausoll has two levels. The construction content (Bauinhalt) describes what is produced: structure, scope, materials, qualities. The construction circumstances (Bauumst\u00e4nde) describe the conditions under which the work is to be carried out: time frame, access to the work area, permitted working hours, supply of electricity and water.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn20\" id=\"fnr20\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">20<\/a><\/sup> Both levels rank equally. If the bidder was entitled to assume continuous work and it turns out that installation may only take place at weekends because the facility remains in operation, the Bauist departs from the Bausoll just as it would with a change of material. The same applies if the construction power supply from the employer&#8217;s grid promised in the tender conditions is not available.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"the-ground\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">The ground<\/h4>\r\n<p>The ground is the most frequent subject of dispute. An example: pad foundations are to be excavated for a warehouse. The ground investigation report attached to the tender documents describes medium sand. Below the topsoil the excavator hits cohesive clay with stones, and daily output halves. The employer points to the contractor&#8217;s ground risk.<\/p>\r\n<p>Whether that argument succeeds is a question of contractual interpretation. An attached report can make the ground conditions it describes part of the work owed, but it need not.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn21\" id=\"fnr21\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">21<\/a><\/sup> The Higher Regional Courts place different emphases. The OLG Naumburg stresses that the developer bears the ground risk and that it is for the developer \u201cto provide an adequate and suitable description of the ground conditions\u201d (our translation).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn22\" id=\"fnr22\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">22<\/a><\/sup> If a ground investigation report forms part of the contract, however, it also defines the contractor&#8217;s Bausoll. In the Naumburg case, the ground investigation report incorporated into the contract required a frost-resistant road build-up of 75 cm. That thickness was therefore owed, even though the contractor&#8217;s tender did not fully provide for it, and only the build-up beyond that was paid additionally.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn23\" id=\"fnr23\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">23<\/a><\/sup> The OLG Hamm, by contrast, has held that additional costs cannot be claimed solely on the general consideration that the developer bears the ground risk. If a method of execution that is suitable in principle fails without the Bausoll or the described ground having changed, this falls within the contractor&#8217;s sphere of risk.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn24\" id=\"fnr24\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">24<\/a><\/sup> In the case decided, a pipe-jacking machine had broken down during microtunnelling for a gas pipeline. There was no additional payment for recovering and repairing the machine. According to the senate, a duty to pay under sec. 2(5) and (6) VOB\/B for damage to equipment caused by a peculiarity of the ground is alien to construction contract law.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn25\" id=\"fnr25\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">25<\/a><\/sup> Anyone relying on differing ground conditions must therefore show precisely which description was departed from and cannot rely on the mere catchword of ground risk.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"detailed-or-functional-description-whoever-designs-bears-the\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Detailed or functional description: whoever designs bears the design risk<\/h4>\r\n<p>Under a detailed description of the works, the contractor owes what is described. Work that such a description does not contain is as a rule not owed. The contractor carries it out only if it is separately ordered and separately paid for.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn26\" id=\"fnr26\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">26<\/a><\/sup> If the employer wants the contractor to perform additional work without additional payment, it must agree this, and the BGH imposes strict requirements on such an agreement.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn27\" id=\"fnr27\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">27<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Behind this lies a principle that Langen\/Berger develop under the heading of functional responsibility: whoever plans the details bears responsibility for the design and its gaps.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn28\" id=\"fnr28\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">28<\/a><\/sup> If the bill of quantities and the construction drawings come from the employer, their errors are at its expense, and closing a gap costs it a variation. If the contractor has taken over the detailed design, as in a functionally tendered global lump-sum contract, it bears this risk itself. Its own design decisions then become part of the Bausoll, and if the employer later departs from them, this constitutes a change that must be paid for. Mixed contracts are to be assessed separately for each part.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn29\" id=\"fnr29\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">29<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The reach of so-called completeness clauses (\u201cthe price covers all work required for complete execution\u201d) is disputed. Langen\/Berger consider such a clause invalid in standard terms and conditions, at least in a detailed lump-sum contract.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn30\" id=\"fnr30\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">30<\/a><\/sup> Bolz, by contrast, sees it as part of the description of the works, which is not subject to review of its content.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn31\" id=\"fnr31\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">31<\/a><\/sup> The LG Hagen (Landgericht, Regional Court of Hagen) has held invalid a completeness clause imposed by the employer in a detailed lump-sum contract for scaffolding works whose bill of quantities specified scaffold quantities and standing times.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn32\" id=\"fnr32\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">32<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"when-the-documents-contradict-each-other\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">When the documents contradict each other<\/h4>\r\n<p>For contradictions between the contract components, sec. 1(2) VOB\/B lays down an order of precedence: description of the works, special, additional and additional technical conditions of contract, VOB\/C, and finally VOB\/B itself. Within the description of the works, according to Langen\/Berger, the written text of the bill of quantities prevails over drawings attached without a reference at the appropriate place.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn33\" id=\"fnr33\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">33<\/a><\/sup> Doubts that cannot be removed by interpretation as a rule go against the employer who drew up the documents.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn34\" id=\"fnr34\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">34<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>In public tenders a further aspect comes into play. In case of doubt, the bidder may understand a description of the works tendered under VOB\/A as meaning that the employer intends to comply with the requirements of VOB\/A for the tender. In the case before the OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, the description of the works required the contractor to plan all necessary protective measures against hazards from railway operations itself and to include them in the price of the item. At the same time, the same passage referred, for the protection planning, to a basis that the employer had specified in a separate annex. According to the senate, the employer had thereby also determined the remunerated Bausoll. A clause in the additional conditions of contract that declared protective measures in general to be ancillary works not paid for separately ranked lower and did not apply, because the bill of quantities separately ordered and paid for the protection.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn35\" id=\"fnr35\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">35<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"success-is-owed-but-not-for-free\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Success is owed, but not for free<\/h4>\r\n<p>The contractor owes a functional work, even if the agreed method of execution is not sufficient for that.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn36\" id=\"fnr36\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">36<\/a><\/sup> It does not follow, however, that it must make good the errors of someone else&#8217;s design at its own expense. Langen\/Berger distinguish for this purpose between the \u201cperformance target\u201d (Leistungssoll) and the \u201cremuneration target\u201d (Verg\u00fctungssoll), and Bolz stresses that the contractor need not perform at the agreed price all work that is necessary for the function but not described.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn37\" id=\"fnr37\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">37<\/a><\/sup> If the described work is not sufficient for a functional result, the contractor must give notice of this (sec. 4(3) VOB\/B), and the employer decides: either it orders the necessary change and pays for it under sec. 2(5) or (6) VOB\/B, or it stays with its description and accepts the consequences. If the contractor has properly notified its concerns, it is not liable for the resulting defect (sec. 13(3) VOB\/B).<\/p>\r\n<p>The same pattern applies where new generally recognised rules of technology come into force after conclusion of the contract but before acceptance (Abnahme). The contractor must inform the employer of this and of the consequences, unless they are known to the employer. If the employer requires compliance with the new rules, the contractor can as a rule claim an adjustment of the remuneration under sec. 1(3) or (4) and sec. 2(5) or (6) VOB\/B. But the employer can also stay with the agreed execution and so avoid additional costs.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn38\" id=\"fnr38\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">38<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"lump-sum-contract-which-quantity-information-is-binding\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Lump-sum contract: which quantity information is binding<\/h4>\r\n<p>In a lump-sum contract (Pauschalvertrag), remuneration is in principle detached from the quantity actually built. Quantities stated in the documents are initially for guidance, and checking them is a matter for the bidder, who may request the necessary basic data for this.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn39\" id=\"fnr39\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">39<\/a><\/sup> There are, however, statements that are not estimates but express a decision by the employer: two lifts, fourteen air outlets according to the ventilation design, thirty underground parking spaces. If the employer changes such a specification, it is correcting its own design, and the additional or reduced work is invoiced via sec. 2(7) no. 2 VOB\/B in accordance with subsections (4) to (6).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn40\" id=\"fnr40\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">40<\/a><\/sup> The BGH goes one step further:<\/p>\r\n<blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.1rem 1.4rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.06);border-left:3px solid var(--acc-budowlane,#C25531);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\"><p style=\"font-style:italic;margin:0\">\u201cWhere the employer describes quantities or factors influencing quantities (here: screed thickness in an extra-over item) in a lump-sum contract, these may have been made the basis of the transaction of the contract. This can be assumed in particular if the contractor was entitled to assume that the employer intended to give a certain assurance of a reliable basis for calculation.\u201d (our translation)<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn41\" id=\"fnr41\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">41<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\r\n<p>A second point concerns discounts. If the contractor granted a discount on the main contract, for example for agreeing a lump sum or across the board on all unit prices, the question later arises whether this discount also reduces the variations. According to the BGH, this is a question of interpreting the discount agreement. If, for example, a discount is granted on all unit prices, this suggests that it is also meant to apply to the variation prices still to be formed.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn42\" id=\"fnr42\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">42<\/a><\/sup> If a clause expressly extends the discount to variations, this is, according to the Kammergericht, a price agreement that is not subject to review of its content.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn43\" id=\"fnr43\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">43<\/a><\/sup> For lump-sum contracts Bolz accepts a percentage deduction in the amount of the lump-sum discount, but does not want any deductions for discounts when calculating on the basis of actual costs in a unit-price contract.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn44\" id=\"fnr44\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">44<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"clauses-intended-to-override-sec-2-vob-b\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Clauses intended to override sec. 2 VOB\/B<\/h4>\r\n<p>Employers frequently exclude sec. 2(3) VOB\/B in their conditions of contract. This is not invalid from the outset, because the statutory law on contracts for work contains no adjustment of the unit price for quantity deviations. According to Bolz, however, the BGH regards such an exclusion as unobjectionable only as long as it leaves untouched the adjustment for interference with the basis of the transaction (sec. 313 BGB) and claims for fault in contract negotiations (culpa in contrahendo). Whether it does so is examined on the interpretation least favourable to the customer.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn45\" id=\"fnr45\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">45<\/a><\/sup> For this reason the BGH objected to a clause under which \u201cchanges in quantities \u2013 even above 10% \u2013 \u2026 are reserved\u201d and \u201cdo not entitle to a price correction\u201d (our translation): on the interpretation least favourable to the customer, it also excludes adjustment under sec. 313 BGB.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn46\" id=\"fnr46\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">46<\/a><\/sup> An opening under which quantity deviations entitle to price changes insofar as this \u201chas been expressly agreed\u201d (our translation) does not save such a clause. The LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth, on the interpretation least favourable to the customer, related the reservation only to agreements already made at the conclusion of the contract. It leaves open whether and under what conditions the employer would have to agree to an adjustment later, and therefore it does not narrow the exclusion.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn47\" id=\"fnr47\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">47<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Finally, before any calculation there is a limit that has nothing to do with sec. 2 VOB\/B. If the parties agree that part of the remuneration is to be paid without an invoice, the entire construction contract is void (sec. 134 BGB in conjunction with sec. 1(2) no. 2 SchwarzArbG, the Act to Combat Undeclared Work). The contractor then has neither a claim for remuneration nor a claim for compensation of value, and the employer has no claims for defects and cannot reclaim what it has already paid. This also applies if the agreement is made only subsequently. If it concerns only part of the remuneration, the properly invoiced part survives only if the parties had allocated specific individual items of work to it.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn48\" id=\"fnr48\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">48<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<figure class=\"bwsum\" aria-label=\"Summary of Part II: Bausoll and conclusion of the contract\" style=\"margin-left:0;margin-right:0\"><p class=\"bwsum__eye\">Part II at a glance<\/p><p class=\"bwsum__t\">Extra pay only beyond the contractual scope (Bausoll)<\/p><div class=\"bwsum__grid bwsum__grid--2\"><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">1<\/span><b>The scope has two layers<\/b><span>Content of the works: what is built. Circumstances: when, where and under which conditions. Both rank equally.<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">2<\/span><b>Ground conditions<\/b><span>An attached soil report can make the ground part of the scope. The catchword \u201cground risk\u201d alone does not carry a variation claim.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">OLG Naumburg \u00b7 OLG Hamm<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">3<\/span><b>Whoever designs bears the design risk<\/b><span>Gaps in the employer&#8217;s bill of quantities and drawings cost the employer a variation. Under a global lump sum the contractor bears them.<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">4<\/span><b>Ancillary or special work<\/b><span>Ancillary work (section 4.1 ATV) is in the price. Special work (4.2) only if the description names it, otherwise sec. 2(6).<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 2(1) VOB\/B<\/span><\/div><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__warn\"><b>Order of precedence in case of conflict (sec. 1(2) VOB\/B):<\/b> work description \u2192 special \u2192 additional \u2192 additional technical conditions of contract \u2192 VOB\/C \u2192 VOB\/B. Doubts that cannot be resolved usually go against the author of the documents.<\/div><\/figure>\r\n<h3 id=\"execution-when-reality-departs-from-the-contract\" style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">III. Execution: when reality departs from the contract<\/h3>\r\n<p>The site reveals where the contract does not fit. For the remuneration it then matters what caused the deviation. Quantities may develop differently from the estimate without anyone&#8217;s intervention, the employer may change, add or take away work, the contractor may act without an order, and finally external events may destroy the calculation. Each of these situations has its own rule.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"1-the-measurement-deviates-sec-2-3-vob-b-in-the-unit-price-c\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">1. The measurement deviates: sec. 2(3) VOB\/B in the unit-price contract<\/h4>\r\n<p>Section 2(3) VOB\/B applies insofar as unit prices have been agreed for the work. For the lump sum, sec. 2(7) VOB\/B takes over this role (below, 2.). The provision covers only changes in quantity that arise without the employer interfering with the Bausoll, typically because the estimated quantities in the bill of quantities were wrongly estimated. If the change is based on an instruction (Anordnung) or on a termination, subsections (5) and (6) or the rules on partial termination apply.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn49\" id=\"fnr49\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">49<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The mechanism has three stages:<\/p>\r\n<ul><li><strong>Deviation up to 10%:<\/strong> The contract price continues to apply (sec. 2(3) no. 1 VOB\/B). Under the concept of the provision, small excess and shortfall quantities in individual items often offset each other.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn50\" id=\"fnr50\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">50<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li><strong>Excess quantity above 110%:<\/strong> For the quantity in excess of this, a new price is to be agreed on request (no. 2). Either side may make the request, including the employer. What results is what Langen\/Berger call a \u201csplit unit price\u201d: the old price up to 110%, the new one above that.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn51\" id=\"fnr51\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">51<\/a><\/sup> The new price may be lower than the old one if the excess quantity is in fact cheaper to produce.<\/li><li><strong>Shortfall below 90%:<\/strong> At the contractor&#8217;s request, the unit price for the entire quantity actually performed is to be increased (no. 3). The increase is to correspond essentially to the amount by which the costs of site set-up, the site overheads and the general overheads are no longer covered because of the reduced quantity. The employer cannot demand a reduction of the unit price for shortfall quantities.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn52\" id=\"fnr52\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">52<\/a><\/sup><\/li><\/ul>\r\n<p>Nothing more is required for the adjustment for excess quantities. According to the BGH, it suffices that the quantity performed exceeds the estimate by more than 10% and that one side requests the new price. Whether the costs contained in the old unit price have actually changed because of the excess quantity is not a condition of the claim. In the case decided, it was the employer that demanded a lower price for fa\u00e7ade insulation. The appeal court should not have refused the claim on the ground that cost advantages for the contractor had not been established.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn53\" id=\"fnr53\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">53<\/a><\/sup> Conversely, without a request the contract price remains. If the contractor invoices deviating quantities at the agreed unit prices and the employer does not request an adjustment either, the contractor&#8217;s action is conclusively pleaded according to the LG Hagen.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn54\" id=\"fnr54\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">54<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>A worked example. The tender provides for 2,000 m\u00b3 of soil replacement at \u20ac24.00\/m\u00b3. Each cubic metre contains \u20ac3.00 of allocation for site set-up, site overheads and general overheads, so \u20ac6,000 calculated in total. If, without any instruction, 2,380 m\u00b3 are required, the contract price applies up to 2,200 m\u00b3. For the remaining 180 m\u00b3, either side can request a new price. If, on the other hand, only 1,700 m\u00b3 are replaced (85%), only \u20ac5,100 of the allocation has been recovered through the unit price. The contractor can demand that the unit price for all 1,700 m\u00b3 be increased so that the missing \u20ac900 is covered, arithmetically by around \u20ac0.53\/m\u00b3. With performance of 92%, by contrast, it could not have claimed anything. Whether, beyond the overheads, the share for risk and profit must also be compensated is disputed.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn55\" id=\"fnr55\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">55<\/a><\/sup> The OLG Brandenburg and the LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth in any event compensate the calculated profit. The OLG treats the general risk as part of the profit, the LG leaves it out because it does not grow with the smaller quantity.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn56\" id=\"fnr56\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">56<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>To prevent advantages from being counted twice, no. 3 contains a proviso: the increase does not apply insofar as the contractor already receives compensation through excess quantities in other items or in some other way. According to Bolz, excess quantities in other items count only with the part above 110% and only if a new price has not already been agreed for them. Compensation in some other way may in particular come from the variations on the same construction project.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn57\" id=\"fnr57\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">57<\/a><\/sup> The rarely cited no. 4 adds that if work paid for at a lump sum depends on a unit-price item, a reasonable change of the lump sum may also be claimed together with the change in the unit price, but only on request.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn58\" id=\"fnr58\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">58<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Compensation in some other way must, however, actually occur. In the case before the OLG Brandenburg, a company was to remove deadwood from over 1,200 roadside trees. Because other firms had got there first, 138 trees were left. The employer offered it work on two further roads not covered by the contract as a substitute, and the contractor declined. That did not cost it its claim. Compensation offered is not compensation received, and only remuneration claims from the same contract are to be credited, for example under sec. 2(5), (6) or (8) VOB\/B. Claims from another contract do not count, even if it follows on directly in place and time.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn59\" id=\"fnr59\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">59<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Two distinctions need to be observed. If an item falls away entirely because the employer misjudged the quantity (zero item, Nullposition), the contractor can, according to the case law of the BGH, claim remuneration by way of supplementary interpretation of the contract in accordance with the principles of sec. 2(3) no. 3 VOB\/B, unless the item falls away because the employer has terminated, waived it or ordered something else. The contractor must submit the compensation calculation itself.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn60\" id=\"fnr60\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">60<\/a><\/sup> According to the OLG Brandenburg, the calculated share for overheads and profit then takes the place of a unit price, and does so in full.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn61\" id=\"fnr61\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">61<\/a><\/sup> If, on the other hand, the employer waives a separable part of the work, for example one of two identical bicycle shelters in the same item, this is not a shortfall but a partial termination. The contractor then retains the agreed price but must give credit for saved expenses and other earnings (sec. 8(1) no. 2 VOB\/B), and no compensation calculation takes place. Under sec. 8(6) VOB\/B, partial termination must be in writing.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn62\" id=\"fnr62\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">62<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The same method of invoicing applies where the parties agree by consent that part of the work will no longer be performed. In the BGH case, the employer, because the construction measure had been accelerated, required a steel safety barrier around 14.8 km long to be dismantled after only 333 instead of 588 days of provision. This was not a shortfall, because sec. 2(3) VOB\/B presupposes a pure change in the estimated quantities without interference with the scope of work. If the parties have not otherwise regulated the consequences of such a consensual termination of the contract, remuneration is governed by sec. 8(1) no. 2 VOB\/B.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn63\" id=\"fnr63\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">63<\/a><\/sup> The LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth has applied this to individual items that by agreement were not performed. The contractor received the site overheads, general overheads and profit calculated in them, which it could not save.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn64\" id=\"fnr64\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">64<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"2-quantities-in-the-lump-sum-contract-sec-2-7-vob-b\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">2. Quantities in the lump-sum contract: sec. 2(7) VOB\/B<\/h4>\r\n<p>The lump sum protects only against deviations that arise without the employer&#8217;s involvement. Everything the employer orders must be paid for separately in a lump-sum contract too, because sec. 2(7) no. 2 VOB\/B expressly declares subsections (4), (5) and (6) applicable. This also applies to minor changes.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn65\" id=\"fnr65\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">65<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>For pure quantity deviations, the lump sum stands until the limit of what can reasonably be expected is reached. Only when the deviation is so large that the lump sum can no longer reasonably be expected of the party affected can that party demand compensation, which takes account of both additional and reduced costs. For this standard, sec. 2(7) no. 1 sentence 2 VOB\/B expressly refers to sec. 313 BGB. The BGH rejects a \u201crigid risk limit of 20% of the total remuneration\u201d (our translation). If, however, the quantity deviation has the effect that the overall financial result of the contract \u201cnot only eats up the contractor&#8217;s expected profit but also leads to losses\u201d (our translation), holding on to the lump sum will often no longer be reasonable. All circumstances are relevant, including whether misleading information from the employer contributed to the miscalculation.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn66\" id=\"fnr66\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">66<\/a><\/sup> As a rule of thumb for closer examination, Langen\/Berger cite a change in the total remuneration of around 20% or a change in individual items of 100% or more.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn67\" id=\"fnr67\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">67<\/a><\/sup> This is guidance from the commentary, not a threshold set by case law.<\/p>\r\n<p>A typical case is a mutual mistake about a quantity. Both parties base the lump sum for the dismantling of a steel structure on around 40 tonnes, but in fact it is over 95 tonnes because the as-built drawings did not show a concealed second load-bearing level. Here holding on to the lump sum may become unreasonable. The compensation does not, however, put the contractor in the position it would have been in had the quantity been correct. Bolz understands it as a mitigation of the loss, and the court may estimate the amount (sec. 287 ZPO).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn68\" id=\"fnr68\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">68<\/a><\/sup> The request should be made as promptly as possible. According to Bolz, it is sufficient in any event if it is raised with the final invoice.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn69\" id=\"fnr69\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">69<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"3-new-drawings-new-instructions-the-order-under-sec-2-5-vob\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">3. New drawings, new instructions: the order under sec. 2(5) VOB\/B<\/h4>\r\n<p>If the employer orders a change, the claim to the new price does not depend on the parties signing a variation agreement.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn70\" id=\"fnr70\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">70<\/a><\/sup> The provision that the price agreement \u201cshould be made before execution\u201d (sec. 2(5) sentence 2 VOB\/B) is a non-mandatory procedural rule (Ordnungsvorschrift). Langen\/Berger summarise the requirements of the claim in three elements: the Bauist departs from the Bausoll, the employer ordered this, and the cause of the order lies within the employer&#8217;s sphere of risk, \u201cnothing more\u201d (our translation).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn71\" id=\"fnr71\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">71<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>An order is a unilateral declaration of the employer, or of a representative authorised by it, that takes effect on receipt. No form is prescribed, and it may also be given by conduct. Revised construction drawings are an order, as Langen\/Berger add, \u201cincidentally even a written order\u201d (our translation). Whether the employer intended to change the contract is irrelevant. It suffices that it requires a particular execution, even if it mistakenly believes that this is already included in the price.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn72\" id=\"fnr72\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">72<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>A communication that merely describes the existing situation is not an order. If the employer reports a hindrance and its consequences, this is, according to the BGH, not an order within the meaning of sec. 2(5) VOB\/B, because such a communication is not aimed at changing the contractual obligations. The same applies to construction schedules with which the employer merely reacts to disruptions caused by hindrances. The BGH has expressly abandoned divergent earlier case law.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn73\" id=\"fnr73\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">73<\/a><\/sup> Compensation for standstill and hindrance in these cases is to be sought under <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-delay-claims-germany\/\">sec. 6(6) VOB\/B and sec. 642 BGB<\/a>, not under sec. 2 VOB\/B.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn74\" id=\"fnr74\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">74<\/a><\/sup> Nor, according to the OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, are general expectations voiced by the employer, for example that use would be made of night working opportunities, as yet a binding, unilateral change to the contract.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn75\" id=\"fnr75\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">75<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The OLG Celle has derived a rule of thumb from the BGH&#8217;s line \u2014 in translation: \u201cThe less influence the employer has on the changed construction circumstances, the less an intention will be discernible to order the changes as a new subject of the contractual performance.\u201d In the case, the road construction authority had informed the contractor by telephone that one construction section was to be split and that the remaining sections could only be carried out in the following year. The reason was a traffic management order that had not been granted as applied for and which the contractor was responsible for obtaining. The contractual completion periods remained unchanged, and the description of the works had expressly not made the contractor&#8217;s construction schedule part of the contract. Nor did the fact that the employer knew the calculation turn the postponement into an order. The Regional Court had still awarded around \u20ac356,000 for it, wrongly, as the OLG decided.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn76\" id=\"fnr76\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">76<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Older decisions that saw such a communication as an order should therefore be used with caution. In 2020, the OLG Brandenburg treated an employer&#8217;s communication that the traffic management order would not be granted and the work could only start in the following year as an order for change under sec. 1(3) and sec. 2(5) VOB\/B. It measured the additional remuneration by revenue lost through the postponement. In its disclosed calculation, the contractor had applied \u20ac8 per tonne of milled asphalt as a price-reducing item, based on an offtake agreement with an asphalt mixing plant that ran only from August to November 2015. The court awarded \u20ac178,730.90.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn77\" id=\"fnr77\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">77<\/a><\/sup> Whether the classification as an order still holds in the light of the more recent BGH case law is doubtful. What remains valid is the difference in responsibility: in the Brandenburg case it was for the employer to obtain the traffic management order, in the Celle case for the contractor. Who is responsible for the cause of the postponement at least decides whether compensation under sec. 6(6) VOB\/B or sec. 642 BGB comes into consideration.<\/p>\r\n<p>The position is different where the parties, for example following a notice of concerns, agree by consent on a different execution without discussing the price. Langen\/Berger then derive the remuneration from sec. 2(5) VOB\/B. Bolz would close the gap by supplementary interpretation of the contract and, in the alternative, through the customary remuneration (sec. 632(2) BGB).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn78\" id=\"fnr78\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">78<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>In substance, the right to give instructions under sec. 1(3) VOB\/B covers the construction design, that is, what is built. The employer may interfere with the construction circumstances only exceptionally, where this is technically imperative. Langen\/Berger give the example of the access road provided for in the contract that is closed by the municipality: the contractor must then follow the instruction to use another road.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn79\" id=\"fnr79\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">79<\/a><\/sup> Whether the employer may also unilaterally change the construction time, that is, accelerate or postpone it, the BGH has left open.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn80\" id=\"fnr80\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">80<\/a><\/sup> For the statutory right to give instructions, the OLG Celle has held that changes which concern not the construction content but only the construction circumstances, and in particular the construction time, are not covered by sec. 650b(1) sentence 1 BGB.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn81\" id=\"fnr81\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">81<\/a><\/sup> Langen\/Berger conclude for the VOB\/B contract that the contractor may refuse an ordered acceleration and freely negotiate its remuneration.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn82\" id=\"fnr82\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">82<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who receives an instruction in this area should therefore expressly agree the remuneration before execution. Under sec. 1(4) sentence 2 VOB\/B, the employer can only assign work that is not required for the execution with the contractor&#8217;s consent. What is then negotiated is a new contract, not a variation.<\/p>\r\n<p>And what if the employer orders something it was not entitled to order? The contractor may then refuse to carry it out. If, as is usual on construction sites, it carries it out nevertheless, it receives remuneration under sec. 2(5) VOB\/B according to both major commentaries. Langen\/Berger treat the instruction as an \u201cother order\u201d (andere Anordnung) within the meaning of that provision, while Bolz sees it as an offer by the employer for changed work (ge\u00e4nderte Leistung), which the contractor accepts by performing it.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn83\" id=\"fnr83\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">83<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>A change usually costs time as well. According to Bolz, the additional costs of an extended construction period, for example longer provision of site set-up, personnel and equipment, are to be claimed under sec. 2(5) VOB\/B and not as damages under sec. 6(6) VOB\/B or compensation under sec. 642 BGB.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn84\" id=\"fnr84\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">84<\/a><\/sup> The BGH has confirmed that \u201cadditional remuneration under sec. 2(5) VOB\/B can also result from indirect time-related effects such as equipment standstill\u201d (our translation) that go back to orders under sec. 1(3) VOB\/B.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn85\" id=\"fnr85\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">85<\/a><\/sup> This also applies to items that themselves remain physically unchanged but whose production becomes more laborious as a result of the order.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn86\" id=\"fnr86\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">86<\/a><\/sup> There is dispute about the proof. Langen\/Berger take the view that an extension of the construction period occurring after the order is presumed, in the contractor&#8217;s favour, to be a consequence of the change.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn87\" id=\"fnr87\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">87<\/a><\/sup> Bolz, by contrast, requires proof of the causal link and as a rule a presentation related to the actual construction sequence.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn88\" id=\"fnr88\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">88<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who cannot prove the time-related consequences through the documented construction sequence should not rely on the presumption.<\/p>\r\n<p>What the contractor spends merely to calculate or substantiate its variation is not part of the additional costs. The BGH case concerned the costs of a private expert report. They are recoverable neither under sec. 2(5) VOB\/B nor under sec. 2(9) VOB\/B, as long as the employer has not requested the documents. A claim for reimbursement on another legal basis is not thereby excluded.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn89\" id=\"fnr89\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">89<\/a><\/sup> If the employer, who bears the design responsibility, requests design documents from the contractor for the changed work, these must be paid for separately according to Bolz.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn90\" id=\"fnr90\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">90<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"4-changed-or-additional-sec-2-5-or-6-vob-b\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">4. Changed or additional? Sec. 2(5) or (6) VOB\/B<\/h4>\r\n<p>The most consequential boundary of sec. 2 VOB\/B runs within the category of orders. <strong>Changed<\/strong> work (sec. 2(5), ge\u00e4nderte Leistung) means work that is provided for in the contract but is to be carried out differently on the basis of an order. Whether the change is technically necessary or merely follows the employer&#8217;s wish makes no difference.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn91\" id=\"fnr91\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">91<\/a><\/sup> <strong>Additional<\/strong> work (sec. 2(6), zus\u00e4tzliche Leistung) means work that is not provided for in the contract and that the employer requires.<\/p>\r\n<p>Different tests are offered for drawing the line in individual cases. Langen\/Berger ask whether the new work can still be developed technically and in terms of pricing from an existing item. If so, there is a change under subsection (5), otherwise additional work under subsection (6).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn92\" id=\"fnr92\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">92<\/a><\/sup> Bolz looks at whether the work is technically necessary to produce a functional work and is missing from the contract.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn93\" id=\"fnr93\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">93<\/a><\/sup> Three examples:<\/p>\r\n<ul><li>For the same walls, the employer requires concrete strength class C30\/37 instead of the tendered C25\/30. Formwork, reinforcement and placing remain the same, only the concrete becomes more expensive. The new work can be developed from the existing item: subsection (5).<\/li><li>The removal of a suspended mineral fibre ceiling has been tendered. In fact, the ceiling is glued directly to the structural slab and has to be chiselled off and disposed of as construction rubble. This is a different production method, and the work is technically necessary for the removal: subsection (6) under both approaches.<\/li><li>The tender provides for 26 EI 30 fire doors, and the employer has nine more installed in a newly partitioned corridor. The item does not change, it simply occurs more often. Langen\/Berger assign such an ordered excess quantity to subsection (6).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn94\" id=\"fnr94\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">94<\/a><\/sup> Bolz distinguishes: if the ordered excess quantity is based on technical necessity, subsection (6) applies, otherwise subsection (5).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn95\" id=\"fnr95\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">95<\/a><\/sup> Since the new corridor is based on the employer&#8217;s wish, Bolz&#8217;s approach would lead to subsection (5). The only certainty is that sec. 2(3) VOB\/B does not fit, because there is an order.<\/li><\/ul>\r\n<p>Case law works with a similar formula. According to the OLG Hamm, under subsection (6) the contractual work remains unchanged and work not provided for in the contract is added. If, by contrast, the contractor performs a continuing contractual obligation differently on the basis of an order, this is a change under subsection (5). Work that takes the place of work provided for can therefore at most fall under subsection (5). In the case, the open trench on the last section replaced the microtunnelling.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn96\" id=\"fnr96\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">96<\/a><\/sup> The OLG D\u00fcsseldorf assigned to subsection (5) the order to protect the same track sections as before, but in a different way, against hazards from railway operations, and therefore did not require prior notice of the additional costs.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn97\" id=\"fnr97\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">97<\/a><\/sup> According to the BGH, work not provided for in the contract also includes work that is necessary to produce the work owed but is not covered by the remuneration agreement. The employer can require it unilaterally under sec. 1(4) sentence 1 VOB\/B, and in return it must be specially remunerated under subsection (6).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn98\" id=\"fnr98\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">98<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Langen\/Berger consider the distinction superfluous, especially as the statutory construction contract law in sec. 650b BGB now knows only a single concept of change.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn99\" id=\"fnr99\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">99<\/a><\/sup> One hard difference remains, however: only under subsection (6) is notice before the start of execution a condition of the claim (Part IV). Since nobody can reliably predict how a court will later classify the work, Langen\/Berger recommend always giving written notice of the claim for additional remuneration before execution, without distinguishing between changes and additional work.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn100\" id=\"fnr100\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">100<\/a><\/sup> <strong>We share this recommendation without reservation.<\/strong> In the case before the OLG Naumburg (Part VII), the contractor had based its claim on subsection (6), and the court applied subsection (5).<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"5-the-employer-takes-over-or-omits-work-sec-2-4-vob-b\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">5. The employer takes over or omits work: sec. 2(4) VOB\/B<\/h4>\r\n<p>The employer can also interfere with the remuneration by taking work away. If it takes over work itself that is contractually the contractor&#8217;s responsibility, classically the supply of building materials, sec. 2(4) VOB\/B applies the rule on termination for convenience accordingly: the contractor receives the agreed remuneration less what it saves or earns elsewhere or maliciously fails to earn (sec. 8(1) no. 2 VOB\/B). If the parties agree by consent to omit part of the work without regulating the remuneration, this, according to the BGH, is not a case of sec. 2(4) VOB\/B. The consequences must then be determined by interpretation.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn101\" id=\"fnr101\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">101<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>How invoicing under sec. 8(1) no. 2 VOB\/B works was summarised by the OLG Brandenburg for a unit-price contract terminated for convenience. The contract prices are decisive, so favourable and unfavourable items are not set off against each other. General overheads and all operating costs that would have been incurred even without the terminated contract are not saved and can at most be covered by other earnings. If the contractor bases the saved material costs on a supplier&#8217;s specific quotation, the employer&#8217;s objection that this figure is not in line with the market does not help it. The only option left to the employer is to prove that it is a sham quotation. The contractor must give credit for other earnings only if the employer alleges them.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn102\" id=\"fnr102\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">102<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>For defects caused by material supplied by the employer, a distinction applies. According to Bolz, the employer who takes over the supply bears only the risk of the general suitability of the material. Production defects in individual parts remain the contractor&#8217;s responsibility, unless it has fulfilled its duty to examine and give notice under sec. 4(3) VOB\/B and is released under sec. 13(3) VOB\/B.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn103\" id=\"fnr103\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">103<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"6-the-contractor-acts-without-an-order-sec-2-8-vob-b\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">6. The contractor acts without an order: sec. 2(8) VOB\/B<\/h4>\r\n<p>The principle is strict: work performed without an order or in unauthorised departure from the order is not remunerated and must even be removed on request (sec. 2(8) no. 1 VOB\/B). There are ways out, which differ markedly in their requirements. Langen\/Berger count four:<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn104\" id=\"fnr104\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">104<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<ul><li>The employer subsequently acknowledges the work (no. 2 sentence 1).<\/li><li>The work was necessary for performance of the contract, the employer would presumably have wanted it, and the contractor notified it without culpable delay (no. 2 sentence 2). All three elements must be present together, and the contractor must prove them. The notification is in principle a condition of the claim.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn105\" id=\"fnr105\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">105<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li>The provisions on agency without authority (Gesch\u00e4ftsf\u00fchrung ohne Auftrag) remain unaffected (no. 3, secs. 677 et seq. BGB). According to the prevailing view, the employer&#8217;s interest and presumed intention suffice here, and no notification is required. Bolz disagrees: if VOB\/B has been agreed as a whole, no. 2 sentence 2 takes precedence as a special rule.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn106\" id=\"fnr106\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">106<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li>An unjust enrichment claim, which however only compensates the objective value, is according to Langen\/Berger only possible if sec. 2(8) VOB\/B is invalid in the specific contract.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn107\" id=\"fnr107\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">107<\/a><\/sup><\/li><\/ul>\r\n<p>This invalidity is not a theoretical case: if the employer imposed VOB\/B and did not agree it as a whole, sec. 2(8) nos. 1 and 2 VOB\/B does not, according to the case law of the BGH, withstand an isolated review of content.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn108\" id=\"fnr108\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">108<\/a><\/sup> Insofar as remuneration is due, it is calculated according to the rules for changed or additional work (no. 2 sentence 3).<\/p>\r\n<p>According to the BGH, consent to the work is sufficient for subsequent acknowledgement. In the drywall case, the contractor had made 4,725 wall penetrations that the employer had not requested. When it was asked on the employer&#8217;s behalf to submit a variation offer (Nachtragsangebot) for them, this amounted to acknowledgement. The fact that the employer did not agree with the price demanded did not change this.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn109\" id=\"fnr109\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">109<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The practical lesson nevertheless remains: if the parties are in dispute over whether work is owed, carrying it out will as a rule not correspond to the employer&#8217;s presumed intention. The contractor must first clarify the situation. Items that the employer has deleted from a variation offer are not to be carried out.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn110\" id=\"fnr110\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">110<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"7-price-shock-from-outside-sec-313-bgb\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">7. Price shock from outside: sec. 313 BGB<\/h4>\r\n<p>After the start of the war in Ukraine, prices for steel, bitumen and other building materials rose sharply. For contracts with fixed prices, the question arose whether the contractor could demand an adjustment. The starting point is strict: the contractor bears the procurement risk for building materials, in the words of Langen\/Berger \u201cin terms of both time and cost\u201d (our translation).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn111\" id=\"fnr111\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">111<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who agrees a fixed price thereby assumes the risk of rising costs. Even unforeseeable and significant increases therefore as a rule do not justify an adjustment of the contract. According to Bolz, case law allows an adjustment only exceptionally in the event of extreme cost jumps that the contractor could not have avoided through its own precautions either.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn112\" id=\"fnr112\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">112<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Langen\/Berger argue for a more generous solution. They distinguish the \u201csmall\u201d basis of the transaction of the individual contract from the \u201clarge\u201d one, that is, the expectation that the political and economic framework will not be fundamentally shaken by war, hyperinflation or the like. Because the war affected not one contract but almost the entire industry, they consider an adjustment justified as soon as the war-related additional costs exceed one and a half times the calculated profit, and would as a rule split the additional costs equally.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn113\" id=\"fnr113\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">113<\/a><\/sup> This is a proposal from the commentary, not settled case law.<\/p>\r\n<p>The public sector reacted with decrees in 2022. As Langen\/Berger describe it, a decree of the Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building of 25.03.2022 treated proven war-related delivery delays as a case of force majeure with a corresponding extension of the completion periods (sec. 6(2) no. 1 lit. c VOB\/B). Above the threshold of reasonableness, it considered a price adjustment under sec. 313 BGB possible and alternatively allowed the subsequent agreement of a material price escalation clause. These decrees were directly binding only on public employers. Langen\/Berger nevertheless attribute to them a \u201cguiding effect\u201d (Orientierungswirkung) also for private contracts concluded before the start of the war.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn114\" id=\"fnr114\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">114<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The practical conclusion: there is no right to a price adjustment merely because prices have risen. Anyone asserting such a right must prove specific, crisis-related additional costs that can no longer be borne within the framework of the specific contract. The contractual solution is better: material price escalation clauses in new contracts, short tender validity periods and, for long projects, possibly invoicing on a cost-reimbursement basis. In existing contracts, time and money are pursued separately, the extension of the completion period through force majeure (sec. 6(2) no. 1 lit. c VOB\/B), the additional costs through sec. 313 BGB, both with complete documentation of purchasing.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"classification-at-a-glance\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Classification at a glance<\/h4>\r\n<ul><li>The quantity of an existing item turns out differently without an order: subsection (3) in the unit-price contract, subsection (7) no. 1 in the lump-sum contract. No notice required.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn115\" id=\"fnr115\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">115<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li>Work provided for in the contract is to be carried out differently on the basis of an order: subsection (5). No notice required, but strongly recommended.<\/li><li>Work not provided for in the contract is required: subsection (6). Notice before the start is a condition of the claim.<\/li><li>The employer orders more of an existing item: subsection (6) according to Langen\/Berger, according to Bolz subsection (5) or (6) depending on technical necessity. Give notice.<\/li><li>The employer takes over work itself or deletes separable parts: subsection (4) or partial termination, invoicing under sec. 8(1) no. 2 VOB\/B.<\/li><li>The contractor performs without an order: subsection (8), remuneration only exceptionally.<\/li><li>The parties change the execution by consent without discussing the price: gap-filling by interpretation, the details are disputed.<\/li><li>External events make the work more expensive: at most sec. 313 BGB.<\/li><\/ul>\r\n<figure class=\"bwsum\" aria-label=\"Summary of Part III: execution, quantities and orders\" style=\"margin-left:0;margin-right:0\"><p class=\"bwsum__eye\">Part III at a glance<\/p><p class=\"bwsum__t\">Quantities, orders and which subsection applies<\/p><div class=\"bwsum__bar\" role=\"img\" aria-label=\"Quantity deviation under sec. 2(3) VOB\/B\"><div style=\"flex:45;background:var(--ink,#161513)\">below 90 %<br>raise unit price (no. 3)<\/div><div style=\"flex:20;background:#8C857E\">90 to 110 %<br>contract price<\/div><div style=\"flex:35;background:var(--terra,#C25531)\">above 110 %<br>new price (no. 2)<\/div><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__ticks\"><span style=\"flex:45\">90 %<\/span><span style=\"flex:20\">110 %<\/span><span style=\"flex:35\"><\/span><\/div><p class=\"bwsum__note\" style=\"margin:0 0 1rem\"><b>Example:<\/b> 2,000 m\u00b3 at \u20ac24.00\/m\u00b3. At 2,380 m\u00b3 the contract price applies up to 2,200 m\u00b3, for 180 m\u00b3 either party may demand a new price. At 1,700 m\u00b3 (85 %) the unit price for all 1,700 m\u00b3 rises by about \u20ac0.53\/m\u00b3, because \u20ac900 of overheads are not covered.<\/p><table class=\"bwsum__tbl\"><thead><tr><th>What happened?<\/th><th>Provision<\/th><th>Prior notice<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Quantity deviates without an order<\/td><td>subs. 3 \/ subs. 7<\/td><td data-l=\"Prior notice\">not required<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Existing work is performed differently on the employer&#8217;s order<\/td><td>subs. 5<\/td><td data-l=\"Prior notice\">not required, but strongly advised<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Work not provided for is demanded<\/td><td>subs. 6<\/td><td class=\"bwsum__yes\" data-l=\"Prior notice\">before starting, condition of the claim<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Employer takes over or omits work<\/td><td>subs. 4 \/ sec. 8<\/td><td data-l=\"Prior notice\">not required<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Contractor works without an order<\/td><td>subs. 8<\/td><td data-l=\"Prior notice\">notification generally required<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>External events make the work more expensive<\/td><td>sec. 313 BGB<\/td><td data-l=\"Prior notice\">adjustment only exceptionally<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\r\n<h3 id=\"securing-the-variation-give-notice-make-an-offer-reach-agree\" style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">IV. Securing the variation: give notice, make an offer, reach agreement<\/h3>\r\n<p>A claim that has arisen can be lost through a single omission. In practice, this is the phase in which most money is lost.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"prior-notice-for-additional-work\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Prior notice for additional work<\/h4>\r\n<p>If work not provided for in the contract is required, the contractor must give notice of its claim to special remuneration before it begins execution (sec. 2(6) no. 1 sentence 2 VOB\/B). According to the case law of the BGH, notice is in principle a condition of the claim. It serves to protect the employer and is therefore unnecessary where it cannot provide that protection \u2014 in translation: \u201cNotice is unnecessary, among other cases, where the employer, when requiring the work, assumed or had to assume that it would be paid for.\u201d<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn116\" id=\"fnr116\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">116<\/a><\/sup> The contractor cannot then fall back on sec. 2(8) VOB\/B, because the work was performed at the employer&#8217;s request and not without an order.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn117\" id=\"fnr117\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">117<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The notice is meant to protect the employer from unexpected costs. It should learn that its request costs money while it can still make other arrangements, choose a cheaper execution or obtain other offers. The requirements are low. No form is prescribed, though written form is advisable for evidential reasons. The notice need not state an amount, a clear message that the work is to be paid for additionally suffices. It must be received before that very work begins.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn118\" id=\"fnr118\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">118<\/a><\/sup> The addressee is the employer. Whether notice to the supervising architect, who has not been given authority to receive it, is sufficient is disputed.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn119\" id=\"fnr119\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">119<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who wants to be on the safe side gives notice to the employer itself.<\/p>\r\n<p>In detail, three groups of cases can be distinguished: where the employer had to assume in any event that the work would be paid for, for example because the contractor had pointed out a gap in the description of the works under sec. 4(3) VOB\/B and the employer then required execution, where there was no alternative to immediate execution, or where the contractor is not at fault for the omission.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn120\" id=\"fnr120\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">120<\/a><\/sup> The contractor bears the burden of pleading and proof for each of these exceptions, and their outcome is hard to predict. Langen\/Berger take the view that the exceptions riddle the provision \u201clike Swiss cheese\u201d (our translation) and consider the notice requirement invalid where VOB\/B has not been agreed as a whole.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn121\" id=\"fnr121\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">121<\/a><\/sup> According to the case law of the BGH, by contrast, it withstands an isolated review of content if it is interpreted so narrowly that the claim lapses only where the employer has an interest worthy of protection and the omission is unexcused.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn122\" id=\"fnr122\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">122<\/a><\/sup> Contracts that extend the notice requirement by standard terms to changed work under subsection (5) are of doubtful validity. We are not aware of any decision on this. It is safer to act as if they were valid.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"the-variation-offer\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">The variation offer<\/h4>\r\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction\/\">variation offer (Nachtragsangebot)<\/a> is at the same time notice and the basis for subsequent invoicing. It should identify the changed or additional work, derive the additional and reduced costs comprehensibly and expressly address the consequences for the construction period. Without a verifiable variation offer, there will as a rule be no meaningful negotiation about the amount either.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn123\" id=\"fnr123\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">123<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who later wants to use the 80% interim payment under sec. 650c(3) BGB (Part VI) must be particularly careful. According to the OLG Celle, a variation offer within the meaning of sec. 650b(1) sentence 2 BGB exists only if the employer can at least approximately estimate the additional costs it faces from it, and it must be available before the order.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn124\" id=\"fnr124\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">124<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"accepting-the-order-under-reservation\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Accepting the order under reservation<\/h4>\r\n<p>The employer often orders the variation, but at its own, lower price. If the contractor signs without reservation, that price is agreed and can no longer be called into question by either side later.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn125\" id=\"fnr125\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">125<\/a><\/sup> If, on the other hand, it accepts the order but expressly keeps the price open, it precisely does not agree to the employer&#8217;s price (sec. 150(2) BGB). No binding price then comes into existence. The case in Part VII shows how much such a sentence can be worth.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"what-the-variation-agreement-should-cover\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">What the variation agreement should cover<\/h4>\r\n<p>For signed variation agreements, Langen\/Berger formulate the maxim \u2014 in translation: \u201cNo variation to the variation!\u201d If the contractor has forgotten time-related additional costs in the agreement, it cannot claim them subsequently because it is bound by the agreement.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn126\" id=\"fnr126\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">126<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who cannot yet quantify the consequences for the construction period must therefore expressly reserve them. If the employer is a consumer and the variation agreement is concluded off business premises, for example on the site of a detached house, the employer may have a right of withdrawal.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn127\" id=\"fnr127\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">127<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Conversely, a signed variation does not automatically create a payment obligation for work that was already owed. The OLG Naumburg, in a detailed lump-sum contract, distinguished between the agreed and the new content of the work. If part of the work already ordered is ordered again in the variation, no double payment obligation arises, and only what goes beyond the previous Bausoll is remunerated. The position is different only if the employer has declared itself willing to pay irrespective of the existing obligation to perform, for example by acknowledgement or settlement. In the case, \u20ac20,053.20 remained of the variation for a reinforced road build-up.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn128\" id=\"fnr128\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">128<\/a><\/sup> The variation should therefore state clearly which work is new.<\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"hourly-work-and-design-services\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Hourly work and design services<\/h4>\r\n<p>Under sec. 2(10) VOB\/B, hourly work (Stundenlohnarbeiten) is only remunerated if it was expressly agreed as such before it began. Bolz considers an agreement possible even during the work or afterwards, while Langen\/Berger emphasise the time before the start.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn129\" id=\"fnr129\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">129<\/a><\/sup> In practice, the question is easy to answer: agree before the first hour. No form is prescribed, but the agreement must be made with the employer or an authorised representative. A site manager or construction supervisor without special authority cannot in principle conclude an hourly-rate agreement, and countersigning an <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-timesheets-germany\/\">hourly time sheet<\/a> concerns only the nature and extent of the work, not the agreement itself.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn130\" id=\"fnr130\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">130<\/a><\/sup> If there is no agreement on the rate, the customary local remuneration applies (sec. 15(1) no. 2 VOB\/B). Invoicing is governed by sec. 15(3) VOB\/B: the employer must return certified hourly time sheets without delay and at the latest within six working days of receipt. Sheets not returned in time are deemed accepted. If the employer considers the effort uneconomical, it must plead and prove this.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn131\" id=\"fnr131\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">131<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Conversely, the employer must pay separately for design documents such as drawings or calculations if it requests them although the contractor does not owe them under the contract and commercial custom (sec. 2(9) no. 1 VOB\/B). No notice is required for this.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn132\" id=\"fnr132\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">132<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"documentation\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Documentation<\/h4>\r\n<p>Indirect costs and consequences for the construction period are proved through the construction sequence, not by assertion. Site diary, photographs, meeting minutes and correspondence about hindrances and changed drawings are items of evidence in this phase. A site diary of which copies are sent to the employer on an ongoing basis can at the same time serve as written notice.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn133\" id=\"fnr133\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">133<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<figure class=\"bwsum\" aria-label=\"Summary of Part IV: securing the variation\" style=\"margin-left:0;margin-right:0\"><p class=\"bwsum__eye\">Part IV at a glance<\/p><p class=\"bwsum__t\">Four steps that save the variation claim<\/p><div class=\"bwsum__flow\"><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">1<\/span><b>Give notice<\/b><span>Before the work starts, to the employer itself, in writing for evidence.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 2(6) no. 1 sent. 2<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">2<\/span><b>Variation offer<\/b><span>Describe the work, derive extra and saved costs verifiably, address construction time.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 650b BGB<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">3<\/span><b>Accept with reservation<\/b><span>Never sign a price that is too low without reservation. With the reservation that price is not agreed.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 150(2) BGB<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">4<\/span><b>Agreement<\/b><span>Quantify time-related costs or reserve them expressly. No variation to the variation.<\/span><\/div><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__warn\"><b>Daywork:<\/b> agree it before the first hour with the employer or an authorised representative (sec. 2(10) VOB\/B). Timesheets not returned in time are deemed accepted (sec. 15(3) VOB\/B).<\/div><\/figure>\r\n<section class=\"bwchk\" id=\"bwchk\" data-progress=\"answered: {a} of {n}\" data-start=\"No answer yet.\" data-partial=\"No gaps so far. Answer all questions to see the result.\" data-more=\"More \u2192\" data-green-t=\"Green light: formally well secured\" data-green-x=\"The key conditions are met. What usually remains open is the amount of the new price (Part V).\" data-yellow-t=\"Amber light: close the gaps while you still can\" data-yellow-x=\"The claim is not lost, but it is open to attack. Catch up on or clarify these points now:\" data-red-t=\"Red light: acute risk to the claim\" data-red-x=\"At least one condition is missing on which variation claims typically fail. Have the variation reviewed before more work is done or anything is signed.\" aria-label=\"Is my variation claim safe? Eight questions\"><p class=\"bwchk__eye\">Self-check<\/p><p class=\"bwchk__t\">Is my variation claim safe? Eight questions<\/p><p class=\"bwchk__intro\">Answer the questions for one specific variation. The traffic light shows where the claim is at risk and links to the relevant part of the article.<\/p><form onsubmit=\"return false\"><fieldset class=\"bwchk__q\" data-q=\"1\" data-crit=\"0\" data-link=\"conclusion-of-the-contract-what-the-price-pays-for\" data-gap=\"Without a departure from the scope there is no variation. Check the contract documents first.\"><legend>1. Does the work go beyond the contractual scope (Bausoll)?<span>Checked against bill of quantities, drawings, description and VOB\/C.<\/span><\/legend><div class=\"bwchk__opts\"><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq1\" value=\"yes\"> Yes<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq1\" value=\"no\"> No<\/label><\/div><\/fieldset><fieldset class=\"bwchk__q\" data-q=\"2\" data-crit=\"0\" data-link=\"execution-when-reality-departs-from-the-contract\" data-gap=\"A mere notice of a hindrance is not an order. Have the order confirmed in writing.\"><legend>2. Did the employer order the work?<span>Itself or through an authorised representative, also by revised drawings.<\/span><\/legend><div class=\"bwchk__opts\"><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq2\" value=\"yes\"> Yes<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq2\" value=\"no\"> No<\/label><\/div><\/fieldset><fieldset class=\"bwchk__q\" data-q=\"3\" data-crit=\"1\" data-link=\"securing-the-variation-give-notice-make-an-offer-reach-agree\" data-gap=\"Notice missing: for additional work a condition of the claim. Catch up at once and have the exceptions checked.\"><legend>3. Did you give written notice of the claim before starting the work?<span>To the employer itself. For additional work this is a condition of the claim.<\/span><\/legend><div class=\"bwchk__opts\"><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq3\" value=\"yes\"> Yes<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq3\" value=\"no\"> No<\/label><\/div><\/fieldset><fieldset class=\"bwchk__q\" data-q=\"4\" data-crit=\"0\" data-link=\"securing-the-variation-give-notice-make-an-offer-reach-agree\" data-gap=\"Without a verifiable offer there is no meaningful negotiation and no safe 80 % interim payment.\"><legend>4. Is there a verifiable variation offer?<span>Work described, extra and saved costs derived, construction time addressed.<\/span><\/legend><div class=\"bwchk__opts\"><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq4\" value=\"yes\"> Yes<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq4\" value=\"no\"> No<\/label><\/div><\/fieldset><fieldset class=\"bwchk__q\" data-q=\"5\" data-crit=\"1\" data-link=\"securing-the-variation-give-notice-make-an-offer-reach-agree\" data-gap=\"Signing without reservation means this price is agreed.\"><legend>5. Did you accept a price that was too low only with a reservation?<span>Only relevant if the employer inserted its own price.<\/span><\/legend><div class=\"bwchk__opts\"><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq5\" value=\"yes\"> Yes<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq5\" value=\"no\"> No<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq5\" value=\"na\"> Not relevant<\/label><\/div><\/fieldset><fieldset class=\"bwchk__q\" data-q=\"6\" data-crit=\"0\" data-link=\"securing-the-variation-give-notice-make-an-offer-reach-agree\" data-gap=\"No variation to the variation: quantify or reserve time-related costs in the agreement.\"><legend>6. Are time-related consequences quantified or expressly reserved?<span>Longer provision of site set-up, personnel and equipment.<\/span><\/legend><div class=\"bwchk__opts\"><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq6\" value=\"yes\"> Yes<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq6\" value=\"no\"> No<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq6\" value=\"na\"> Not relevant<\/label><\/div><\/fieldset><fieldset class=\"bwchk__q\" data-q=\"7\" data-crit=\"0\" data-link=\"securing-the-variation-give-notice-make-an-offer-reach-agree\" data-gap=\"Indirect costs and delay consequences are proven through the documented course of construction.\"><legend>7. Do you document the course of construction continuously?<span>Site diary, photos, meeting minutes, correspondence.<\/span><\/legend><div class=\"bwchk__opts\"><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq7\" value=\"yes\"> Yes<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq7\" value=\"no\"> No<\/label><\/div><\/fieldset><fieldset class=\"bwchk__q\" data-q=\"8\" data-crit=\"0\" data-link=\"before-the-contract-tender-and-calculation\" data-gap=\"What is not in the price does not exist for a later adjustment. Secure the calculation.\"><legend>8. Is the original tender calculation complete and kept?<span>And deposited if the contract provides for it.<\/span><\/legend><div class=\"bwchk__opts\"><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq8\" value=\"yes\"> Yes<\/label><label><input type=\"radio\" name=\"bwq8\" value=\"no\"> No<\/label><\/div><\/fieldset><\/form><div class=\"bwchk__res\" aria-live=\"polite\"><div class=\"bwchk__lights\"><i class=\"r\"><\/i><i class=\"y\"><\/i><i class=\"g\"><\/i><span><\/span><\/div><p class=\"bwchk__rt\"><\/p><p class=\"bwchk__rx\"><\/p><ul class=\"bwchk__gaps\"><\/ul><a class=\"btn bwchk__cta\" href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" style=\"display:none\">Have your variation reviewed <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/div><p class=\"bwchk__note\">Simplified self-check, not legal advice. Your answers stay in your browser and are neither stored nor transmitted.<\/p><\/section><script>\r\n(function(){\r\nvar root=document.getElementById('bwchk');\r\nif(!root){return;}\r\nvar qs=root.querySelectorAll('[data-q]');\r\nvar res=root.querySelector('.bwchk__res');\r\nfunction t(k){return root.getAttribute('data-'+k)||'';}\r\nfunction upd(){\r\nvar answered=0,no=0,crit=false,gaps=[];\r\nfor(var i=0;i<qs.length;i++){\r\nvar q=qs[i];var sel=q.querySelector('input:checked');\r\nif(sel){answered+=1;\r\nif(sel.value==='no'){no+=1;if(q.getAttribute('data-crit')==='1'){crit=true;}gaps.push(q);}}}\r\nroot.classList.remove('bwchk-red','bwchk-yellow','bwchk-green');\r\nvar prog=t('progress').replace('{a}',answered).replace('{n}',qs.length);\r\nres.querySelector('.bwchk__lights span').textContent=prog;\r\nvar title=res.querySelector('.bwchk__rt'),text=res.querySelector('.bwchk__rx'),list=res.querySelector('.bwchk__gaps'),cta=res.querySelector('.bwchk__cta');\r\nlist.innerHTML='';cta.style.display='none';\r\nif(answered===0){title.textContent=t('start');text.textContent='';return;}\r\nif(no===0){if(answered<qs.length){title.textContent=t('partial');text.textContent='';return;}}\r\nvar level='green';\r\nif(crit){level='red';}else{if(no>=3){level='red';}else{if(no>0){level='yellow';}}}\r\nroot.classList.add('bwchk-'+level);\r\ntitle.textContent=t(level+'-t');text.textContent=t(level+'-x');\r\nfor(var j=0;j<gaps.length;j++){\r\nvar li=document.createElement('li');li.appendChild(document.createTextNode(gaps[j].getAttribute('data-gap')+' '));\r\nvar a=document.createElement('a');a.href='#'+gaps[j].getAttribute('data-link');a.textContent=t('more');li.appendChild(a);list.appendChild(li);}\r\nif(level!=='green'){cta.style.display='inline-block';}\r\n}\r\nroot.addEventListener('change',upd);upd();\r\n})();\r\n<\/script>\r\n<h3 id=\"invoicing-how-the-new-price-is-formed\" style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">V. Invoicing: how the new price is formed<\/h3>\r\n<p>Only now do the figures come in. For decades, German construction law followed pre-calculatory price continuation (vorkalkulatorische Preisfortschreibung): the new price was developed from the original tender calculation, if necessary from a comparable item in another part of the bill of quantities. Good and bad prices alike were thus preserved as the basis.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn134\" id=\"fnr134\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">134<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who had been too cheap in the tender carried that loss forward into all variations.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn135\" id=\"fnr135\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">135<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"first-the-contract-then-agreement-then-the-gap\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">First the contract, then agreement, then the gap<\/h4>\r\n<p>Before a method is chosen, an order of steps must be followed. First: does the contract, beyond the mere incorporation of VOB\/B, regulate how variation prices are to be formed? Second: have the parties agreed on the specific variation or on its method of calculation, including tacitly through their invoicing practice? Third: only if both are lacking is there a gap to be filled by supplementary interpretation of the contract.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn136\" id=\"fnr136\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">136<\/a><\/sup> Agreements on individual price components, for example an agreed general contractor's mark-up on subcontractor work, also apply to variations.<\/p>\r\n<p>Whether a pre-formulated clause under which variations are to be carried forward exclusively from the original tender calculation is valid is disputed. Langen\/Berger consider such a provision possible even in standard terms and conditions.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn137\" id=\"fnr137\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">137<\/a><\/sup> Bolz considers such a clause incompatible with the guiding principle of sec. 650c BGB and therefore unreasonable, irrespective of which side imposed it.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn138\" id=\"fnr138\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">138<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"the-bgh-s-line-costs-actually-required\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">The BGH's line: costs actually required<\/h4>\r\n<p>For excess quantities under sec. 2(3) no. 2 VOB\/B, the BGH has filled the gap. If there is no agreement between the parties, including on individual price components, the new price is to be formed by way of supplementary interpretation of the contract, and the decisive factor is then the costs actually required for the excess quantity plus reasonable mark-ups.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn139\" id=\"fnr139\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">139<\/a><\/sup> A few months later it went further: a reference to one's own calculation is not sufficient to substantiate the amount of the mark-ups, but the court may estimate them (sec. 287(2) ZPO).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn140\" id=\"fnr140\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">140<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>For changed and additional work, the Kammergericht had already taken the same path earlier. Its first headnote reads \u2014 in translation: \u201cThe basis of the claim for additional remuneration under sec. 2(5) and (6) VOB\/B is the actual additional or reduced costs incurred by the contractor as a result of the change in performance.\u201d The court captured this in the formula M = N \u2212 A: the additional costs result from the difference between the costs of the new and those of the old execution. As a mark-up, based on the statutory presumption of 5% on termination for convenience (sec. 649 sentence 3 BGB old version, now sec. 648 sentence 3 BGB), it applied at least the factor 20\/19, that is, around 5.3%.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn141\" id=\"fnr141\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">141<\/a><\/sup> Bolz considers such a flat-rate minimum mark-up mistaken, because the reasonable mark-ups depend on the company and its field of activity.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn142\" id=\"fnr142\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">142<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>Whether the standard of actual costs applies to all grounds for adjustment has not been conclusively settled. For additional work under subsection (6), the OLG Brandenburg held the costs actually required to be decisive, though these may well coincide with the calculated ones.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn143\" id=\"fnr143\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">143<\/a><\/sup> The OLG Schleswig left open for subsection (5) whether the BGH's case law on excess quantities can be transferred, and showed that supplementary interpretation of the contract can also lead back to the calculation: where the parties \u201chave agreed prices for a large number of different items of work, there is a sufficient probability that they would have been guided by these price agreements\u201d (our translation). The calculated costs then remain at least an aid.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn144\" id=\"fnr144\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">144<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The procedural advantage of the new line is considerable. Anyone who sets out the actual costs of the change need not disclose and defend the entire calculation. If the contractor uses a subcontractor, its additional costs are as a rule the remuneration it must pay the subcontractor for the change at market rates.<\/p>\r\n<p>The Kammergericht clarified in 2025 what the contractor must plead for this purpose. In principle, it must break down its additional expenditure at least by type of cost, that is, by material, equipment and labour. This can only be dispensed with if the derivation can also be followed without it, above all in the case of a manageable, well-described part of the work. The calculation of the original price has only the significance of an aid. If it does not accurately reflect the actual costs, or if this is disputed, the actual costs count. The price level of the contract is not lost as a result, because it is carried forward through the mark-up factor derived from the agreed remuneration (below, calculation rules). According to the Kammergericht, this is exactly what the formula \u201ca good price stays a good price, a bad price stays a bad price\u201d (our translation) means, which, contrary to widespread understanding, is not an argument against invoicing on the basis of actual costs.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn145\" id=\"fnr145\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">145<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"the-deposited-original-tender-calculation-sec-650c-2-bgb\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">The deposited original tender calculation: sec. 650c(2) BGB<\/h4>\r\n<p>In the statutory construction contract law, the calculation remains in play. If the contractor has deposited its original tender calculation as agreed, it may calculate the variation on that basis under sec. 650c(2) BGB, and it is presumed that the remuneration thus carried forward corresponds to the remuneration based on the costs actually required. The Kammergericht interprets this presumption narrowly: only the correctness of the figures in the deposited calculation is presumed, not the end result of the price continuation.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn146\" id=\"fnr146\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">146<\/a><\/sup> Whether the provision also applies in a VOB\/B contract is disputed. The Kammergericht applies it,<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn147\" id=\"fnr147\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">147<\/a><\/sup> and Langen\/Berger consider this almost compelling.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn148\" id=\"fnr148\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">148<\/a><\/sup> Bolz rejects any recourse to the calculation within the framework of sec. 2 VOB\/B, even to a deposited one, because there must be no combination of actual and calculated costs in a variation calculation.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn149\" id=\"fnr149\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">149<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"shortfall-quantities\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Shortfall quantities<\/h4>\r\n<p>For shortfall quantities, the BGH has not yet decided on the method. In the clearing case, it expressly left open how the adjustment is to be made in detail and merely held that factors outside the original price calculation are disregarded.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn150\" id=\"fnr150\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">150<\/a><\/sup> Langen\/Berger nevertheless infer from the decision that the new price is to be formed on the basis of the original tender calculation, and consider recourse to actual costs pointless for shortfall quantities.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn151\" id=\"fnr151\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">151<\/a><\/sup> In practice there is no way around the calculation anyway: to calculate the compensation, the contractor must disclose which shares for site set-up, site overheads and general overheads are contained in its unit prices.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn152\" id=\"fnr152\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">152<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>The LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth has expressly decided against transferring the BGH case law on excess quantities to shortfall quantities. The compensation, it held, is to be determined by carrying forward the prices of the bill of quantities on a calculatory basis, because the agreed profit cannot be read from the actual costs. The calculation was as follows: 6.0% site overheads, 10.5% general overheads and 1.0% each for risk and profit had been calculated, so the unit price stood at 118.5% of the direct costs. For the shortfall quantity, the mark-up share contained in it, excluding risk (17.5 percentage points), was extracted and multiplied by the difference between the tendered and the performed quantity. Excess quantities above 10% in other items entered the compensation calculation as over-recovery with the share excluding risk and profit (16.5 percentage points).<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn153\" id=\"fnr153\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">153<\/a><\/sup> Part of the OLG Brandenburg's tree-cutting case (Part III.1), by contrast, can no longer be upheld. There, revenue from the utilisation of the cuttings that had not been included in the unit price was also compensated. According to the BGH's later clearing judgment, such factors are disregarded.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn154\" id=\"fnr154\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">154<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<h4 id=\"calculation-rules\" style=\"font-size:1.12rem;margin:1.9rem 0 .6rem;color:var(--ink);scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Calculation rules<\/h4>\r\n<ul><li><strong>Timing:<\/strong> According to Langen\/Berger, the decisive costs are those at the start of execution of the changed work.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn155\" id=\"fnr155\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">155<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li><strong>Site overheads<\/strong>, if they can be separately evidenced, count as part of the costs themselves and not of the mark-up. The BGH itself has clarified that the divergent wording in its judgment of 08.08.2019 was due to an editorial oversight.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn156\" id=\"fnr156\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">156<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li><strong>Mark-ups<\/strong> for general overheads and for risk and profit are to be assessed reasonably, according to Bolz on a company-specific basis. The Kammergericht primarily looks at the mark-up factor contained in the agreed price. If the court has to determine it itself, factors between 1.05 or 1.0526 and 1.2 can in any event be regarded as reasonable.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn157\" id=\"fnr157\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">157<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li><strong>Estimation:<\/strong> If there is no reliable basis for an exact calculation, the court may estimate costs and mark-ups (sec. 287(2) ZPO), provided that the contractor presents tangible indications for this.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn158\" id=\"fnr158\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">158<\/a><\/sup><\/li><li><strong>Reduced costs:<\/strong> Estimation works in both directions. The OLG D\u00fcsseldorf deducted from the estimated variation price a likewise estimated saving of \u20ac16,559.40, because no fixed protection had to be erected over 660 m. It rejected the objection that no significant personnel costs had been saved, because with protective equipment, as with scaffolding, the quantity of material and the duration of its use also determine the price.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn159\" id=\"fnr159\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">159<\/a><\/sup><\/li><\/ul>\r\n<p>If the variations swell considerably overall, the question arises whether the contractor remains bound by old, bad prices. Langen\/Berger consider a guideline indispensable and speak of a \u201cred alert\u201d (Alarmsignal Rot) when the variations exceed 30% of the original contract sum, adding that 25% could also be defended as the limit.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn160\" id=\"fnr160\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">160<\/a><\/sup> The BGH has not recognised such a limit. It held that an appeal court's assumption that the binding effect of the old price ends in any event \u201cif the change amounts to more than 30 per cent of the contract remuneration\u201d (our translation) was not sufficiently reasoned, and referred to the requirements of sec. 313 BGB in the individual case.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn161\" id=\"fnr161\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">161<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<figure class=\"bwsum\" aria-label=\"Summary of Part V: invoicing\" style=\"margin-left:0;margin-right:0\"><p class=\"bwsum__eye\">Part V at a glance<\/p><p class=\"bwsum__t\">How the new price is formed<\/p><div class=\"bwsum__flow\"><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">1<\/span><b>Contract<\/b><span>Does the contract say how variation prices are formed?<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">2<\/span><b>Agreement<\/b><span>Have the parties agreed, also through their invoicing practice?<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><span class=\"bwsum__n\">3<\/span><b>Gap<\/b><span>Only then supplementary interpretation: actually necessary costs plus reasonable mark-ups.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">BGH VII ZR 34\/18<\/span><\/div><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__grid bwsum__grid--2\" style=\"margin-top:.7rem\"><div class=\"bwsum__c bwsum__dark\"><b>Formula of the Kammergericht<\/b><p class=\"bwsum__formula\" style=\"color:#E8946B\">M = N \u2212 A<\/p><span>Extra costs = costs of the new minus costs of the original execution. Mark-up at least 20\/19, about 5.3 %.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\" style=\"background:rgba(232,148,107,.16);color:#E8946B\">KG 21 U 30\/17<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><b>Substantiation<\/b><span>Break down the extra effort into materials, equipment and labour. The calculation is only an aid. Include savings yourself.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">KG 21 U 176\/24<\/span><\/div><\/div><p class=\"bwsum__note\"><b>Reduced quantities:<\/b> the BGH has left the method open. In practice there is no way around the calculation (LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth 12 O 8630\/20).<\/p><\/figure>\r\n<h3 id=\"dispute-liquidity-before-judgment\" style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">VI. Dispute: liquidity before judgment<\/h3>\r\n<p>One can answer every question of classification and calculation correctly and still lose if the answer only comes after years. The construction contract law of 2018 gave contractors tools with which liquidity can be secured during the dispute. Whether they also apply in a VOB\/B contract has not been conclusively decided, but the case law of the Higher Regional Courts increasingly affirms it.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn162\" id=\"fnr162\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">162<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Interim payment of 80%.<\/strong> In the case of a disputed variation, the contractor may demand 80% of the additional remuneration stated in its variation offer as an interim payment (Abschlagszahlung) under sec. 650c(3) BGB. If the later final account shows that this was too much, the excess must be repaid with interest. According to the OLG M\u00fcnchen and the OLG Celle, this also presupposes in a VOB\/B contract that the requirements of sec. 650b BGB are met, in particular a sufficient variation offer before the order.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn163\" id=\"fnr163\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">163<\/a><\/sup> According to the Kammergericht, the 80% rule does not give rise to a presumption as to the amount of the variation that binds the court, neither in the main proceedings nor in interim relief proceedings.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn164\" id=\"fnr164\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">164<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Interim injunction.<\/strong> Under <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/interim-payment-injunction-german-construction\/\">sec. 650d BGB<\/a>, in disputes about the right to give instructions and the adjustment of remuneration after construction has started, the ground for an injunction (Verf\u00fcgungsgrund, in essence urgency) need not be shown to obtain an interim injunction (einstweilige Verf\u00fcgung). This makes it possible to clarify provisionally whether there was an order, which helps precisely where the employer insists that the work is included in the price. The employer can also take this route, for example to have it established that a variation is unfounded.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn165\" id=\"fnr165\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">165<\/a><\/sup> According to the Kammergericht, an application for a positive declaration is equally admissible, for example that a piece of work is already covered by the bill of quantities, or precisely not.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn166\" id=\"fnr166\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">166<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p>How far this relief extends is disputed among the Higher Regional Courts. The OLG Celle does not apply the presumption of the ground for an injunction to disputes under sec. 1(3), (4) and sec. 2(5), (6) VOB\/B, whereas the Kammergericht does.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn167\" id=\"fnr167\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">167<\/a><\/sup> According to the OLG Karlsruhe, disputes about pure changes in quantity fall under neither sec. 650b nor sec. 650c BGB in any event, so that sec. 650d BGB does not apply to them either.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn168\" id=\"fnr168\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">168<\/a><\/sup> According to the Kammergericht, the presumption does not lapse once the final invoice is ready to be issued (Schlussrechnungsreife) either, whereas according to the OLG Karlsruhe the scope of sec. 650d BGB is then no longer open.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn169\" id=\"fnr169\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">169<\/a><\/sup> Anyone who waits too long with the application in any event refutes the urgency themselves.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn170\" id=\"fnr170\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">170<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Security.<\/strong> The builder's security (Bauhandwerkersicherung) under sec. 650f(1) BGB expressly also covers remuneration from additional orders. According to Langen\/Berger, the contractor can demand security for the variation remuneration even before execution.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn171\" id=\"fnr171\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">171<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Suspension and refusal to perform.<\/strong> If a payment due is not made despite a reasonable additional period, the contractor may suspend the work (sec. 16(5) no. 4 VOB\/B). A mere dispute over the amount of a variation does not entitle it to do so, because under sec. 18(5) VOB\/B disputes do not entitle the contractor to suspend the work. Bolz puts it this way: the principle that \u201cperformance of the contract takes precedence over price certainty\u201d (our translation) applies. The position is different if the employer definitively refuses payment for an ordered change, or disputes the change and refuses any negotiation.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn172\" id=\"fnr172\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">172<\/a><\/sup> Langen\/Berger go further and grant a right to refuse performance as soon as the employer refuses without reason to fix a properly substantiated variation price before execution, though they themselves advise caution.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn173\" id=\"fnr173\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">173<\/a><\/sup> In any event, it is risky to threaten to suspend work in order to force a signature on a variation. This may constitute an unlawful threat, and an unjustified refusal to perform may entitle the employer to terminate for good cause.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn174\" id=\"fnr174\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">174<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<figure class=\"bwsum\" aria-label=\"Summary of Part VI: dispute and liquidity\" style=\"margin-left:0;margin-right:0\"><p class=\"bwsum__eye\">Part VI at a glance<\/p><p class=\"bwsum__t\">Securing liquidity before judgment<\/p><div class=\"bwsum__grid bwsum__grid--2\"><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><b>80 % interim payment<\/b><span>For a disputed variation, 80 % of the extra remuneration offered. Condition: an adequate variation offer before the order.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 650c(3) BGB<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><b>Interim injunction<\/b><span>No need to show urgency. Its reach in VOB\/B contracts is disputed between the Higher Regional Courts.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 650d BGB<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><b>Security<\/b><span>The builder's security also covers remuneration from additional orders.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 650f BGB<\/span><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__c\"><b>Suspension<\/b><span>Only if a payment that is due remains unpaid despite a grace period.<\/span><span class=\"bwsum__p\">sec. 16(5) no. 4 VOB\/B<\/span><\/div><\/div><div class=\"bwsum__warn\"><b>No work stoppage over a mere price dispute<\/b> (sec. 18(5) VOB\/B). Threatening to stop work to force a signature on a variation is risky. An unjustified refusal to perform can entitle the employer to terminate for cause.<\/div><\/figure>\r\n<h3 id=\"a-project-in-fast-motion-the-olg-naumburg-case\" style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">VII. A project in fast motion: the OLG Naumburg case<\/h3>\r\n<p>The case that the OLG Naumburg concluded at the end of 2025 runs through all phases of this article, and it shows how long the answer can take.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn175\" id=\"fnr175\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">175<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Tender and contract.<\/strong> In November 2013, a specialist company was awarded the contract for clearing explosive ordnance from a lot of around 102 hectares on a military training area. VOB\/B 2012 had been agreed, the bill of quantities worked with unit prices, and the tender for the lot was around \u20ac1.04 million gross. The area was to be uncovered by hand.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Execution.<\/strong> On around 369,000 m\u00b2, a good third of the area, the ground was so compacted that it could not be dug by hand. A hydraulic excavator with armoured glazing became necessary. The employer ordered the work to continue under these conditions. The court classified this as a change under sec. 2(5) VOB\/B and not as additional work under subsection (6), because the existing basic items were affected and no new work was added. The parties agreed a new extra-over item for it.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Variation.<\/strong> The contractor demanded \u20ac0.91\/m\u00b2. The employer placed the variation order in March 2015 but entered a price of \u20ac0.28\/m\u00b2 on the form and paid only that. The contractor accepted the order but reserved the right to fix the price later. The court saw the employer's change of price as a rejection of the variation offer combined with a new offer (sec. 150(2) BGB), and the contractor's reservation as a refusal to agree to that price. A binding price of \u20ac0.28\/m\u00b2 never came into existence. The fact that invoicing had in the meantime been at the employer's price did no harm, because an interim invoice is only a provisional account.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Invoicing.<\/strong> The court did not calculate according to the actual additional costs but carried forward the tender calculation, because the parties had agreed on this method, at least in the proceedings. It took the personnel costs from the comparable extra-over items for difficult recovery of ordnance. Result: \u20ac0.78\/m\u00b2 and, for the extra-over item, a further payment of \u20ac220,352.26 gross. Behind this lies a general idea: if, in a longer project, the contractor has always calculated its variations from the original tender calculation and the employer has accepted this by checking and paying, then according to Bolz a common understanding about the method is to be assumed, and the new price is then carried forward from the calculation.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn176\" id=\"fnr176\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">176<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Duration.<\/strong> The action had been filed in August 2015. After the judgment of the LG Magdeburg in 2018, the OLG Naumburg initially dismissed the claim for the extra-over item in 2019. In December 2022, the BGH set aside that judgment to that extent and remitted the case, because an expert opinion should have been obtained.<sup class=\"fnref\"><a href=\"#fn177\" id=\"fnr177\" style=\"text-decoration:none;font-weight:600\">177<\/a><\/sup> After the report of an expert in construction pricing, the final judgment was handed down at the end of 2025. Ten years for one unit price are the strongest argument for the tools from Part VI. They are to be used in the first year of the dispute, not the tenth.<\/p>\r\n<figure class=\"bwsum\" aria-label=\"Summary of Part VII: the OLG Naumburg case\" style=\"margin-left:0;margin-right:0\"><p class=\"bwsum__eye\">Part VII at a glance<\/p><p class=\"bwsum__t\">Ten years for one unit price: OLG Naumburg<\/p><ol class=\"bwsum__tl\"><li><b>November 2013<\/b> \u00b7 Contract for clearing unexploded ordnance, about 102 ha, unit prices, VOB\/B 2012, about \u20ac1.04 million gross.<\/li><li><b>Execution<\/b> \u00b7 Hardened soil on about 369,000 m\u00b2. Excavator instead of manual work, treated by the court as a change under sec. 2(5) VOB\/B.<\/li><li><b>March 2015<\/b> \u00b7 Variation order at \u20ac0.28\/m\u00b2 instead of the \u20ac0.91\/m\u00b2 claimed, accepted only with reservation.<\/li><li><b>August 2015<\/b> \u00b7 Action filed. 2018 judgment of the LG Magdeburg, 2019 the OLG dismisses the surcharge claim.<\/li><li><b>December 2022<\/b> \u00b7 The BGH sets aside to that extent and remits, because an expert opinion was missing.<\/li><li class=\"bwsum__end\"><b>End of 2025<\/b> \u00b7 Calculation carried forward: \u20ac0.78\/m\u00b2, back payment \u20ac220,352.26 gross.<\/li><\/ol><p class=\"bwsum__note\">The reservation on acceptance saved the claim. The tools from Part VI belong in the first year of a dispute, not the tenth.<\/p><\/figure>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"hl rv\" style=\"max-width:760px\">\r\n<span class=\"eyebrow\">Checklist<\/span>\r\n  <h3 id=\"merkliste\" style=\"scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Checklist by project phase<\/h3>\r\n  <ul style=\"margin:.8rem 0 0 1.1rem;padding:0\">\r\n    <li style=\"margin:.35rem 0\"><strong>Tender:<\/strong> Draw up the calculation completely, reflect all revenue expectations in the price, clarify ambiguities relevant to the calculation before submission.<\/li>\r\n    <li style=\"margin:.35rem 0\"><strong>Contract:<\/strong> Define the form of remuneration unambiguously. Record the Bausoll completely, including the description of the ground and the construction circumstances. Clarify the order of precedence of the documents, check clauses on variation prices, quantity adjustment and discounts, deposit the original tender calculation if the contract so provides. Never without an invoice.<\/li>\r\n    <li style=\"margin:.35rem 0\"><strong>Execution:<\/strong> Classify every deviation (subsections (3) or (7), (4), (5), (6), (8)). Revised drawings are an order, a mere communication about a hindrance is not. For quantity deviations over 10%, request the new price in writing.<\/li>\r\n    <li style=\"margin:.35rem 0\"><strong>Variation:<\/strong> Give written notice of every deviation before starting, to the employer itself. Derive variation offers verifiably, address or expressly reserve consequences for the construction period. Accept a variation order at too low a price only under express reservation. Agree hourly work with an authorised person before the first hour.<\/li>\r\n    <li style=\"margin:.35rem 0\"><strong>Invoicing:<\/strong> Determine the method from the contract and previous practice and apply it consistently. Document actual costs, keep the original tender calculation. Break down additional costs by material, equipment and labour and include reduced costs yourself.<\/li>\r\n    <li style=\"margin:.35rem 0\"><strong>Dispute:<\/strong> Do not wait for the judgment. Interim payment of 80% (sec. 650c(3) BGB), interim injunction (sec. 650d BGB), security (sec. 650f BGB). Do not threaten a site stoppage.<\/li>\r\n  <\/ul>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n<h3 id=\"faq\" style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Frequently asked questions<\/h3>\r\n<p><strong>When does a quantity deviation lead to a new unit price?<\/strong><br>If the deviation is up to 10 %, the contract price continues to apply (sec. 2(3) no. 1 VOB\/B). For a quantity above 110 %, a new price is to be agreed on request (no. 2). Either party may request it, including the employer. For a quantity below 90 %, the unit price for the entire quantity actually performed is to be increased at the contractor's request (no. 3).<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>What is the difference between changed and additional work?<\/strong><br>Changed work (sec. 2(5) VOB\/B) is work provided for in the contract that is to be performed differently on the employer's order. Additional work (sec. 2(6) VOB\/B) is work not provided for in the contract that the employer demands. Only under subsection 6 is notice before the start of the work a condition of the claim.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>Do I have to give notice of a claim for extra pay before starting the work?<\/strong><br>For additional work, yes: the contractor must give notice of the claim to special remuneration before starting performance (sec. 2(6) no. 1 sentence 2 VOB\/B). No form is prescribed, written form is advisable for evidence. Since nobody can predict with certainty how a court will classify the work, notice of a claim for extra pay should always be given in writing before performance, for changes and additional work alike.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>The employer orders the variation at its own, lower price. What now?<\/strong><br>If the contractor signs without reservation, that price is agreed and can no longer be challenged by either party. If, however, the contractor accepts the order and expressly leaves the price open, it does not agree to the employer's price (sec. 150(2) BGB). No binding price then comes into existence.<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>How is the new price calculated?<\/strong><br>First according to the contract, then according to an agreement between the parties, only then by supplementary interpretation. For an increased quantity under sec. 2(3) no. 2 VOB\/B, the BGH then applies the actually necessary costs plus reasonable mark-ups (BGH, judgment of 08.08.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 34\/18). For changed and additional work, the Kammergericht had already taken the same route (KG, judgment of 10.07.2018 \u2013 21 U 30\/17).<\/p>\r\n<p><strong>May I stop work while the variation is in dispute?<\/strong><br>A mere dispute about the amount of a variation does not entitle the contractor to do so, because under sec. 18(5) VOB\/B disputes do not entitle the contractor to stop work. If a payment that is due remains unpaid despite a reasonable grace period, the contractor may suspend the work (sec. 16(5) no. 4 VOB\/B). Threatening to stop work in order to force a signature on a variation is risky in any event.<\/p>\r\n<h3 id=\"fussnoten\" style=\"font-size:1.1rem;margin-top:2.4rem;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Footnotes<\/h3>\r\n<ol style=\"font-size:.84rem;line-height:1.55;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0 0 0 1.4rem;padding:0\">\r\n<li id=\"fn1\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 1. <a href=\"#fnr1\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn2\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">On the types of invoicing and contract, Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 43 to 46. <a href=\"#fnr2\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn3\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 66 (\u201eDa ihn nur die Verg\u00fctungsmethodik vom Einheitspreisvertrag unterscheidet\u201c), likewise Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 42. <a href=\"#fnr3\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn4\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">In favour of a renaissance, Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 46. Reserved as to its practical significance, Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 46. <a href=\"#fnr4\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn5\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Brandenburg, judgment of 18.02.2021 \u2013 12 U 114\/19, NZBau 2021, 534 Rn. 20 f., following BGH NJW 1981, 1442. On sec. 2(7) VOB\/B, there Rn. 30. Not to be confused with OLG Naumburg, judgment of 16.12.2019 \u2013 12 U 114\/19 (Parts II and IV). <a href=\"#fnr5\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn6\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 10.06.2021 \u2013 VII ZR 157\/20, NJW 2021, 3393 = NZBau 2021, 725 = BauR 2022, 102 (headnote) Rn. 28 to 33. <a href=\"#fnr6\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn7\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 07.03.2013 \u2013 VII ZR 68\/10, BGHZ 196, 299 = NJW 2013, 1950 = NZBau 2013, 366 (headnotes a to c) Rn. 21 and 25 to 27. <a href=\"#fnr7\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn8\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 14.03.2013 \u2013 VII ZR 116\/12, BGHZ 196, 355 = NJW 2013, 1953 = NZBau 2013, 369 (headnotes c and d). <a href=\"#fnr8\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn9\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 54. <a href=\"#fnr9\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn10\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 54 at the end. Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 188. <a href=\"#fnr10\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn11\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 71. <a href=\"#fnr11\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn12\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 184 f., there on the case law of the BGH since the so-called university library decision (Universit\u00e4tsbibliothek) of 25.06.1987. <a href=\"#fnr12\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn13\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 186. <a href=\"#fnr13\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn14\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 13.03.2008 \u2013 VII ZR 194\/06, BGHZ 176, 23 = NJW 2008, 2106 = NZBau 2008, 437 (headnote e). On this, Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 185 at the end. <a href=\"#fnr14\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn15\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">On the terms, Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 38 and 63. <a href=\"#fnr15\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn16\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 13.02.2026 \u2013 21 U 13\/26, NZBau 2026, 464 (headnotes 1 and 2), handed down in proceedings under sec. 650d BGB (Part VI). <a href=\"#fnr16\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn17\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 39. <a href=\"#fnr17\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn18\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 39 (example on the review of standard terms under secs. 305 et seq. BGB). <a href=\"#fnr18\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn19\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG M\u00fcnchen, judgment of 15.01.1987 \u2013 29 U 4348\/86, NJW-RR 1987, 661 (action brought by an association, still decided under the former Standard Business Terms Act, AGB-Gesetz, whose standards continue to apply today in secs. 305 et seq. BGB). <a href=\"#fnr19\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn20\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Terms following Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 38, the example of a conversion carried out \u201eunter Betrieb\u201c (while operations continue) there at Rdn. 63. <a href=\"#fnr20\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn21\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 20.06.2013 \u2013 VII ZR 103\/12, NZBau 2013, 565 = NJW-RR 2014, 23 Rn. 22 f. <a href=\"#fnr21\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn22\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Naumburg, judgment of 16.12.2019 \u2013 12 U 114\/19, NZBau 2020, 504 Rn. 51 (detailed lump-sum contract). <a href=\"#fnr22\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn23\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Naumburg, judgment of 16.12.2019 \u2013 12 U 114\/19, NZBau 2020, 504 Rn. 43 to 45 (scope of a completeness clause that made the report part of the contract). <a href=\"#fnr23\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn24\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Hamm, judgment of 08.07.2025 \u2013 21 U 2\/23, NZBau 2026, 454 Rn. 35 and 39 (microtunnelling for a gas pipeline). <a href=\"#fnr24\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn25\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Hamm, judgment of 08.07.2025 \u2013 21 U 2\/23, NZBau 2026, 454 (headnote 1) Rn. 27 to 29. <a href=\"#fnr25\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn26\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 64. <a href=\"#fnr26\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn27\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 13.03.2008 \u2013 VII ZR 194\/06, BGHZ 176, 23 = NJW 2008, 2106 = NZBau 2008, 437 (headnote c). <a href=\"#fnr27\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn28\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 66 to 68. <a href=\"#fnr28\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn29\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 68 (\u201eF\u00fcr den jeweiligen Teil gelten die jeweiligen Regeln.\u201c). <a href=\"#fnr29\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn30\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 66 f. <a href=\"#fnr30\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn31\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 203. <a href=\"#fnr31\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn32\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">LG Hagen, judgment of 06.09.2023 \u2013 21 O 75\/20, NJW-RR 2024, 19. <a href=\"#fnr32\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn33\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 70. Cf. BGH, judgment of 05.12.2002 \u2013 VII ZR 342\/01, NJW 2003, 743 = NZBau 2003, 149 (the wording of the description of the works carries comparatively great weight as against drawings, at least where it describes the work precisely in detail). <a href=\"#fnr33\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn34\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 72. <a href=\"#fnr34\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn35\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, judgment of 27.03.2025 \u2013 5 U 148\/23, NJW-RR 2025, 1046 = NZBau 2025, 496 (headnote 1). <a href=\"#fnr35\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn36\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 08.11.2007 \u2013 VII ZR 183\/05, BGHZ 174, 110 = NJW 2008, 511 = NZBau 2008, 109. <a href=\"#fnr36\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn37\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 40. Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 9. <a href=\"#fnr37\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn38\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 14.11.2017 \u2013 VII ZR 65\/14, BGHZ 217, 13 = NJW 2018, 391 = NZBau 2018, 207 (headnotes 2a and 2b) Rn. 25 to 28, still on VOB\/B 2006. <a href=\"#fnr38\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn39\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 106. <a href=\"#fnr39\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn40\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Cf. the examples in Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 107 (five beech trees in the external works, roller shutters on 30 of 50 windows). How the ordered excess quantity is to be classified is disputed (Part III.4). <a href=\"#fnr40\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn41\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 30.06.2011 \u2013 VII ZR 13\/10, BGHZ 190, 212 = NJW 2011, 3287 = NZBau 2011, 553 (headnote b). <a href=\"#fnr41\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn42\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 24.07.2003 \u2013 VII ZR 79\/02, NJW-RR 2004, 92 = NZBau 2004, 31 = BauR 2003, 1892 (reasons under III. 2 b, there a discount of 5% \u201eauf alle Einheitspreise\u201c). <a href=\"#fnr42\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn43\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 11.02.2025 \u2013 21 U 89\/23, NJW 2025, 2776 (headnote 1). <a href=\"#fnr43\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn44\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 102 (unit-price contract) and Rdn. 220 f. (lump-sum contract). <a href=\"#fnr44\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn45\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 117 and Rdn. 29, likewise Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 55 at the end. <a href=\"#fnr45\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn46\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, order of 04.11.2015 \u2013 VII ZR 282\/14, NJW-RR 2016, 29 = NZBau 2016, 96 Rn. 24 f. (precautionary indication in proceedings on a complaint against refusal of leave to appeal). <a href=\"#fnr46\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn47\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth, judgment of 18.12.2023 \u2013 12 O 8630\/20, NJW-RR 2024, 634 Rn. 41. <a href=\"#fnr47\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn48\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 01.08.2013 \u2013 VII ZR 6\/13, BGHZ 198, 141 = NJW 2013, 3167 (no claims for defects). BGH, judgment of 10.04.2014 \u2013 VII ZR 241\/13, BGHZ 201, 1 = NJW 2014, 1805 (no compensation of value). BGH, judgment of 11.06.2015 \u2013 VII ZR 216\/14, BGHZ 206, 69 = NJW 2015, 2406 (no restitution, sec. 817 sentence 2 BGB). BGH, judgment of 16.03.2017 \u2013 VII ZR 197\/16, BGHZ 214, 228 = NJW 2017, 1808 Rn. 17 and 24 (subsequent and partial agreement). <a href=\"#fnr48\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn49\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 4. Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 47. <a href=\"#fnr49\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn50\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 105. <a href=\"#fnr50\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn51\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 52. <a href=\"#fnr51\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn52\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 107. <a href=\"#fnr52\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn53\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 21.11.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 10\/19, NJW 2020, 468 = NZBau 2020, 84 (headnote) Rn. 13 to 17. <a href=\"#fnr53\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn54\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">LG Hagen, judgment of 06.09.2023 \u2013 21 O 75\/20, NJW-RR 2024, 19 (headnote 3). <a href=\"#fnr54\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn55\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">In favour of compensating risk and profit as well, the prevailing view, cf. Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 55. Critical, as hardly compatible with the wording, Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 108. <a href=\"#fnr55\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn56\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Brandenburg, judgment of 16.10.2019 \u2013 4 U 80\/18, NZBau 2020, 158 Rn. 28 to 31. LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth, judgment of 18.12.2023 \u2013 12 O 8630\/20, NJW-RR 2024, 634 Rn. 44. <a href=\"#fnr56\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn57\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 111. Likewise, also on the inclusion of variations, Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 56. <a href=\"#fnr57\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn58\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 113. <a href=\"#fnr58\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn59\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Brandenburg, judgment of 16.10.2019 \u2013 4 U 80\/18, NZBau 2020, 158 (headnote 1) Rn. 19 to 22. <a href=\"#fnr59\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn60\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 26.01.2012 \u2013 VII ZR 19\/11, BGHZ 192, 252 = NJW 2012, 1348 = NZBau 2012, 226 Rn. 14, 20 to 22 and 24. <a href=\"#fnr60\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn61\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Brandenburg, judgment of 16.10.2019 \u2013 4 U 80\/18, NZBau 2020, 158 (headnote 3) Rn. 42 and 45, following BGH, judgment of 26.01.2012 \u2013 VII ZR 19\/11, BGHZ 192, 252. <a href=\"#fnr61\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn62\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">On the distinction, BGH, judgment of 26.04.2018 \u2013 VII ZR 82\/17, NJW 2018, 2564 = NZBau 2018, 461 (headnotes a and b) Rn. 18 to 20. On the ordered removal of items as partial termination and on the written form, Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 106 and 128. The example is based on Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 55 (two of four concrete slabs of equal size). <a href=\"#fnr62\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn63\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 26.04.2018 \u2013 VII ZR 82\/17, NJW 2018, 2564 = NZBau 2018, 461 (headnotes a and b), still on VOB\/B 2002. <a href=\"#fnr63\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn64\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth, judgment of 18.12.2023 \u2013 12 O 8630\/20, NJW-RR 2024, 634 (headnote 2) Rn. 50 to 53 (the court assumed as true that the items were removed by agreement, Rn. 51). <a href=\"#fnr64\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn65\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 220. Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 105. <a href=\"#fnr65\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn66\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 30.06.2011 \u2013 VII ZR 13\/10, BGHZ 190, 212 = NJW 2011, 3287 = NZBau 2011, 553 (headnote c) Rn. 30. <a href=\"#fnr66\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn67\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 109. <a href=\"#fnr67\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn68\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 217. <a href=\"#fnr68\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn69\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 219. <a href=\"#fnr69\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn70\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 134. Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 87. <a href=\"#fnr70\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn71\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 87. <a href=\"#fnr71\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn72\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 85. <a href=\"#fnr72\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn73\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 19.09.2024 \u2013 VII ZR 10\/24, BGHZ 241, 306 = NJW 2024, 3716 = NZBau 2025, 176 Rn. 16, 21 f. and 27. Following it, OLG Celle, judgment of 14.01.2026 \u2013 14 U 58\/25, NJW 2026, 2110. <a href=\"#fnr73\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn74\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 139 at the end. <a href=\"#fnr74\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn75\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, judgment of 27.03.2025 \u2013 5 U 148\/23, NJW-RR 2025, 1046 = NZBau 2025, 496. <a href=\"#fnr75\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn76\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Celle, judgment of 14.01.2026 \u2013 14 U 58\/25, NJW 2026, 2110 Rn. 47 and 51 to 60, the quotation at Rn. 57, following BGH, judgment of 19.09.2024 \u2013 VII ZR 10\/24, BGHZ 241, 306. <a href=\"#fnr76\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn77\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Brandenburg, judgment of 25.06.2020 \u2013 12 U 59\/19, NZBau 2021, 106 (headnotes 1 and 2) Rn. 24 and 26 to 33. <a href=\"#fnr77\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn78\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 85. Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 138. <a href=\"#fnr78\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn79\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 75. <a href=\"#fnr79\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn80\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 139. <a href=\"#fnr80\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn81\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Celle, judgment of 14.05.2025 \u2013 14 U 238\/24, NJW 2026, 236 = NZBau 2026, 102 Rn. 76 (headnote 3). <a href=\"#fnr81\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn82\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 77. <a href=\"#fnr82\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn83\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 77. Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 140. <a href=\"#fnr83\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn84\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 135. <a href=\"#fnr84\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn85\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, order of 23.03.2022 \u2013 VII ZR 191\/21, NJW 2022, 2332 = NZBau 2022, 521 (headnote a). <a href=\"#fnr85\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn86\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 90 (indirect effects of the order on parts of the work that remain physically unchanged). <a href=\"#fnr86\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn87\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 90. <a href=\"#fnr87\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn88\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 98 (on excess quantities) and Rdn. 141. <a href=\"#fnr88\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn89\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 22.10.2020 \u2013 VII ZR 10\/17, NZBau 2021, 24 (headnote a) Rn. 14, 16 f. and 19 to 23. On this, Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 92 and Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 150. <a href=\"#fnr89\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn90\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 151 f. <a href=\"#fnr90\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn91\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 137. <a href=\"#fnr91\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn92\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 80. <a href=\"#fnr92\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn93\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 167. <a href=\"#fnr93\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn94\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 81 (example: enlargement of a car park by 100 m\u00b2). <a href=\"#fnr94\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn95\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 136. <a href=\"#fnr95\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn96\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Hamm, judgment of 08.07.2025 \u2013 21 U 2\/23, NZBau 2026, 454 Rn. 32 f. <a href=\"#fnr96\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn97\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, judgment of 27.03.2025 \u2013 5 U 148\/23, NJW-RR 2025, 1046 = NZBau 2025, 496 (reasons on the protection of lots 10 and 15). <a href=\"#fnr97\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn98\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 07.03.2013 \u2013 VII ZR 68\/10, BGHZ 196, 299 = NJW 2013, 1950 = NZBau 2013, 366 Rn. 11, still on VOB\/B in the former numbering (sec. 1 no. 4, sec. 2 no. 6). <a href=\"#fnr98\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn99\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 74 (heading: \u201eDie VOB\/B unterscheidet (\u00fcberfl\u00fcssigerweise) noch zwischen ge\u00e4nderten Leistungen und zus\u00e4tzlichen Leistungen\u201c) and Rdn. 82. <a href=\"#fnr99\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn100\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 84. <a href=\"#fnr100\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn101\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 127, also on invoicing under sec. 8(1) no. 2 VOB\/B. <a href=\"#fnr101\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn102\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Brandenburg, judgment of 20.10.2022 \u2013 12 U 37\/21, NZBau 2023, 166 (headnotes 1 to 4), still on sec. 649 BGB old version. <a href=\"#fnr102\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn103\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 131. <a href=\"#fnr103\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn104\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 103. <a href=\"#fnr104\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn105\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 250 and 258. <a href=\"#fnr105\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn106\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">On the prevailing view, Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 254 f., on the opposing view, same author, Rdn. 256 f. <a href=\"#fnr106\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn107\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 103. <a href=\"#fnr107\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn108\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 259. <a href=\"#fnr108\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn109\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 07.03.2013 \u2013 VII ZR 68\/10, BGHZ 196, 299 = NJW 2013, 1950 = NZBau 2013, 366 Rn. 10 to 14. Same decision on sec. 138 BGB in Part I and on the 30% limit in Part V. <a href=\"#fnr109\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn110\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 248 f. <a href=\"#fnr110\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn111\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 110. <a href=\"#fnr111\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn112\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 28, there with references on cost increases by a factor of 15 and by 60% relative to the total remuneration respectively. <a href=\"#fnr112\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn113\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 110 (with a worked example). <a href=\"#fnr113\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn114\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 110, there also on the guiding effect for private construction contracts. <a href=\"#fnr114\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn115\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 103. <a href=\"#fnr115\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn116\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, order of 23.03.2022 \u2013 VII ZR 191\/21, NJW 2022, 2332 = NZBau 2022, 521 Rn. 23, following BGH, judgment of 23.05.1996 \u2013 VII ZR 245\/94, BGHZ 133, 44 = NJW 1996, 2158 = BauR 1996, 542. <a href=\"#fnr116\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn117\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 171. <a href=\"#fnr117\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn118\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 172 and 177 to 180. <a href=\"#fnr118\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn119\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 181, who considers only the employer to be the correct addressee, without prejudice to the principles of apparent authority and authority by acquiescence (Anscheins- und Duldungsvollmacht). <a href=\"#fnr119\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn120\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 172 to 176, following BGH, judgment of 23.05.1996 \u2013 VII ZR 245\/94, BGHZ 133, 44. <a href=\"#fnr120\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn121\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 82 f. <a href=\"#fnr121\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn122\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 193. <a href=\"#fnr122\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn123\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 160. <a href=\"#fnr123\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn124\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Celle, judgment of 14.05.2025 \u2013 14 U 238\/24, NJW 2026, 236 = NZBau 2026, 102 (headnote 2). <a href=\"#fnr124\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn125\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 100. <a href=\"#fnr125\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn126\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 58. <a href=\"#fnr126\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn127\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Karlsruhe, order of 14.04.2023 \u2013 8 U 17\/23, NJW 2024, 156 = NZBau 2024, 27 (headnotes 1 and 2: variation agreements on additional work are legally independent contracts for work, withdrawal under secs. 312b, 312g BGB). <a href=\"#fnr127\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn128\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Naumburg, judgment of 16.12.2019 \u2013 12 U 114\/19, NZBau 2020, 504 (headnotes 1 and 2) Rn. 21 to 25 and 36. On the ground, same decision in Part II. <a href=\"#fnr128\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn129\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 274. Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 45. <a href=\"#fnr129\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn130\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 271. On the signature of a site manager without authority on hourly time sheets, OLG Brandenburg, order of 12.05.2026 \u2013 10 U 84\/25, IBRRS 2026, 1591. <a href=\"#fnr130\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn131\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 277, there also on the contractor's secondary burden of pleading. <a href=\"#fnr131\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn132\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 265. <a href=\"#fnr132\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn133\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 84. <a href=\"#fnr133\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn134\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 95. <a href=\"#fnr134\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn135\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Thus still OLG Hamm, judgment of 09.05.2018 \u2013 I-12 U 88\/17, NJW-RR 2019, 14 Rn. 51 to 54 (a calculated loss is carried forward in absolute terms). The decision predates BGH, judgment of 08.08.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 34\/18, and was criticised by the KG, judgment of 10.07.2018 \u2013 21 U 30\/17, BauR 2018, 1738. <a href=\"#fnr135\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn136\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 08.08.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 34\/18, BGHZ 223, 45 Rn. 17 and 20 f. (there an agreed general contractor's mark-up of 20%) and Rn. 27. Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 50 f. On agreement through invoicing practice, Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 84. <a href=\"#fnr136\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn137\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 54. <a href=\"#fnr137\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn138\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 118. <a href=\"#fnr138\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn139\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 08.08.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 34\/18, BGHZ 223, 45 = NJW 2020, 337 = NZBau 2019, 706 (headnote d) Rn. 17, 20 f. and 27 to 29. <a href=\"#fnr139\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn140\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 21.11.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 10\/19, NJW 2020, 468 = NZBau 2020, 84 Rn. 24. Likewise already BGH, judgment of 08.08.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 34\/18, BGHZ 223, 45 Rn. 19. <a href=\"#fnr140\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn141\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 10.07.2018 \u2013 21 U 30\/17, BauR 2018, 1738 = ZfBR 2018, 670 (headnotes 1 and 7). The complaint against refusal of leave to appeal was dismissed (BGH, order of 24.04.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 164\/18). <a href=\"#fnr141\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn142\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 101. <a href=\"#fnr142\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn143\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Brandenburg, judgment of 22.04.2020 \u2013 11 U 153\/18, NZBau 2020, 639. <a href=\"#fnr143\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn144\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Schleswig, judgment of 17.12.2020 \u2013 7 U 21\/18, juris Rn. 68 and 71 (headnote 6). The complaint against refusal of leave to appeal was dismissed (BGH, order of 23.02.2022 \u2013 VII ZR 117\/21). <a href=\"#fnr144\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn145\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 18.07.2025 \u2013 21 U 176\/24, NZBau 2026, 47 (headnotes 3 and 4 and the reasons on the mark-up factor, appeal on points of law admitted). <a href=\"#fnr145\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn146\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 02.03.2021 \u2013 21 U 1098\/20, NZBau 2021, 523 Rn. 64 f. (headnote 3). <a href=\"#fnr146\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn147\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 02.03.2021 \u2013 21 U 1098\/20, NZBau 2021, 523 Rn. 63. <a href=\"#fnr147\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn148\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 93. <a href=\"#fnr148\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn149\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 100. <a href=\"#fnr149\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn150\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 10.06.2021 \u2013 VII ZR 157\/20, NJW 2021, 3393 Rn. 28 (\u201eunabh\u00e4ngig davon, wie diese im Einzelnen erfolgt\u201c). Likewise the case note by Kandel, NJW 2021, 3396. <a href=\"#fnr150\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn151\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 55. <a href=\"#fnr151\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn152\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 109. <a href=\"#fnr152\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn153\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth, judgment of 18.12.2023 \u2013 12 O 8630\/20, NJW-RR 2024, 634 (headnote 1) Rn. 42 and 44 to 46, distinguishing BGH, judgment of 08.08.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 34\/18. <a href=\"#fnr153\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn154\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Brandenburg, judgment of 16.10.2019 \u2013 4 U 80\/18, NZBau 2020, 158 Rn. 34 to 38 (\u20ac9.13 per tree). Contra BGH, judgment of 10.06.2021 \u2013 VII ZR 157\/20, NJW 2021, 3393 Rn. 28. <a href=\"#fnr154\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn155\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 96. <a href=\"#fnr155\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn156\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 21.11.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 10\/19, NJW 2020, 468 = NZBau 2020, 84 Rn. 22 f. Likewise Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 97 and Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 91. <a href=\"#fnr156\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn157\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 101. KG, judgment of 18.07.2025 \u2013 21 U 176\/24, NZBau 2026, 47 (headnote 2, appeal on points of law admitted). <a href=\"#fnr157\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn158\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 08.08.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 34\/18, BGHZ 223, 45 Rn. 19, and of 21.11.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 10\/19, NZBau 2020, 84 Rn. 24. OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, judgment of 27.03.2025 \u2013 5 U 148\/23, NJW-RR 2025, 1046 = NZBau 2025, 496 (estimate based on the additional costs incurred, a variation calculation could not be required). Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 101 and 217. <a href=\"#fnr158\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn159\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, judgment of 27.03.2025 \u2013 5 U 148\/23, NJW-RR 2025, 1046 = NZBau 2025, 496 (estimated at 660 m at \u20ac25.09 including mark-up). <a href=\"#fnr159\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn160\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 98. <a href=\"#fnr160\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn161\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, judgment of 07.03.2013 \u2013 VII ZR 68\/10, BGHZ 196, 299 = NJW 2013, 1950 Rn. 18. <a href=\"#fnr161\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn162\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Affirming, OLG M\u00fcnchen, order of 12.03.2024 \u2013 9 U 3791\/23 Bau e, NJW 2024, 2117 = NZBau 2024, 753 (headnote 2), OLG Celle, judgment of 14.05.2025 \u2013 14 U 238\/24, NJW 2026, 236 = NZBau 2026, 102 (headnote 1), KG, judgment of 02.03.2021 \u2013 21 U 1098\/20, NZBau 2021, 523. Likewise Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 60 and 100 (\u201eim Vordringen befindliche obergerichtliche Rechtsprechung\u201c). <a href=\"#fnr162\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn163\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG M\u00fcnchen, order of 12.03.2024 \u2013 9 U 3791\/23 Bau e, NJW 2024, 2117 (headnote 2). OLG Celle, judgment of 14.05.2025 \u2013 14 U 238\/24, NJW 2026, 236 (headnotes 1 and 2). <a href=\"#fnr163\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn164\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 02.03.2021 \u2013 21 U 1098\/20, NZBau 2021, 523 Rn. 56 (headnote 4). <a href=\"#fnr164\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn165\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 60. <a href=\"#fnr165\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn166\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 13.02.2026 \u2013 21 U 13\/26, NZBau 2026, 464 (headnote 3). <a href=\"#fnr166\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn167\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Celle, judgment of 14.05.2025 \u2013 14 U 238\/24, NJW 2026, 236 Rn. 104. Contra KG, judgment of 13.02.2026 \u2013 21 U 13\/26, NZBau 2026, 464, which expressly refers to the divergent view of the OLG Celle. <a href=\"#fnr167\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn168\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Karlsruhe, order of 23.09.2022 \u2013 8 W 29\/22, NJW 2023, 372 Rn. 11. <a href=\"#fnr168\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn169\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">KG, judgment of 02.03.2021 \u2013 21 U 1098\/20, NZBau 2021, 523 (headnote 2). Contra OLG Karlsruhe, order of 23.09.2022 \u2013 8 W 29\/22, NJW 2023, 372 Rn. 14. <a href=\"#fnr169\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn170\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Celle, judgment of 14.05.2025 \u2013 14 U 238\/24, NJW 2026, 236 (headnote 4). Similarly OLG Karlsruhe, order of 23.09.2022 \u2013 8 W 29\/22, NJW 2023, 372 (headnote 3). <a href=\"#fnr170\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn171\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 100 at the end. <a href=\"#fnr171\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn172\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 159 and 162 f. <a href=\"#fnr172\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn173\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Langen\/Berger, Einf\u00fchrung in die VOB\/B, 30. Aufl. 2025, Abschn. G Rdn. 100. <a href=\"#fnr173\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn174\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 164. <a href=\"#fnr174\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn175\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">OLG Naumburg, judgment of 23.12.2025 \u2013 2 U 113\/18, IBRRS 2026, 0777 (appeal on points of law not admitted). <a href=\"#fnr175\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn176\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">Bolz, in: Bolz\/Jurgeleit, ibr-online-Kommentar VOB\/B, Stand: 25.08.2025, \u00a7 2 Rdn. 84. <a href=\"#fnr176\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<li id=\"fn177\" style=\"margin:.25rem 0;scroll-margin-top:6rem\">BGH, order of 14.12.2022 \u2013 VII ZR 271\/19 (judgment set aside and case remitted on the contractor's complaint against refusal of leave to appeal). At first instance, LG Magdeburg, judgment of 18.07.2018 \u2013 10 O 1176\/15. <a href=\"#fnr177\" aria-label=\"back to text\" style=\"text-decoration:none\">\u21a9<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin-top:1.4rem\">Legal position: October 2026. This article is for general information and does not replace legal advice in an individual case.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"mini-cta rv\"><b>A variation dispute on a German construction site?<\/b><span style=\"color:var(--ink-soft);font-size:.92rem\">Send us the contract, the bill of quantities and the correspondence. We assess the qualification, the deadlines and the best route, in English, German and Polish.<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"margin-top:1.5rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.1rem\">Related topics<\/h3>\r\n      <div class=\"chips\" style=\"margin-top:.8rem\">\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-german-construction-contract\/\">VOB\/B explained \u2014 guide \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction\/\">Extra work (Nachtrag) \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/interim-payment-injunction-german-construction\/\">Interim payment injunction \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-timesheets-germany\/\">Construction timesheets \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-delay-claims-germany\/\">Construction delay claims \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/acceptance-construction-works-germany\/\">Acceptance (Abnahme) \u2192<\/a>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/article>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"sec alt\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"lawyer rv\">\r\n      <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr Artur Barczewski\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <b>Dr Artur Barczewski<\/b>\r\n        <div class=\"role\">niedergelassener europ\u00e4ischer Rechtsanwalt \/ Radca prawny<\/div>\r\n        <p>Author of the series \u201cVOB\/B clause by clause\u201d. Handles construction disputes for foreign companies across Germany, in English, German and Polish. <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\">View profile \u2192<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"cta-end\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <span class=\"eyebrow rv\">Contact<\/span>\r\n    <h2 class=\"rv d1\">Does your situation look similar?<\/h2>\r\n    <p class=\"rv d2\">Every case has details that change the outcome. Describe yours \u2014 you will receive a specific answer and a fee estimate.<\/p>\r\n    <div class=\"row rv d3\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"phone\">\u260e +49 335 553 10969<\/a>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<footer>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"foot-grid\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-brand\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"BWLAW logo\" width=\"38\" height=\"26\"><\/div>\r\n        <p>Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<br>Rudolf-Breitscheid-Stra\u00dfe 10<br>15230 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany<br><a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\">+49 335 553 10969<\/a> \u00b7 <a href=\"mailto:info@bwlaw.de\">info@bwlaw.de<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Practice areas<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law and VOB\/B<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Dismissal in Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection in Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Companies and incorporation<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/\">Defective car from Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Information<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/\">Home<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"\/en\/contact\/\">Contact &amp; directions<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/impressum\/\">Imprint<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/privacy-policy\/\">Privacy policy<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"foot-bottom\">\r\n      <span>\u00a9 2026 BWLAW \u00b7 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<\/span>\r\n      <span>niedergelassene europ\u00e4ische Rechtsanw\u00e4lte \/ Radcowie prawni \u00b7 Frankfurt (Oder)<\/span>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/footer>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"sticky-cta\">\r\n  <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"call\">\u260e Call<\/a>\r\n  <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"book\">Describe your case<\/a>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\r\n{\r\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\r\n  \"@graph\": [\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"Article\",\r\n      \"headline\": \"VOB\/B Section 2: payment and variation claims from tender to final invoice\",\r\n      \"description\": \"VOB\/B section 2 from tender to final invoice: quantities over 10 %, subsection 5 or 6, notice of variation claims and the new price under BGH VII ZR 34\/18.\",\r\n      \"inLanguage\": \"en\",\r\n      \"author\": {\r\n        \"@type\": \"Person\",\r\n        \"name\": \"dr Artur Barczewski\",\r\n        \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\"\r\n      },\r\n      \"publisher\": {\r\n        \"@type\": \"LegalService\",\r\n        \"name\": \"BWLAW \u2013 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski & Dr. Wroblewska GbR\",\r\n        \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/\"\r\n      },\r\n      \"datePublished\": \"2026-10-20\",\r\n      \"dateModified\": \"2026-10-20\",\r\n      \"mainEntityOfPage\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-section-2-pricing\/\",\r\n      \"isPartOf\": {\r\n        \"@type\": \"CreativeWorkSeries\",\r\n        \"name\": \"VOB\/B clause by clause\",\r\n        \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-german-construction-contract\/\"\r\n      }\r\n    },\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\r\n      \"mainEntity\": [\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"When does a quantity deviation lead to a new unit price?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"If the deviation is up to 10 %, the contract price continues to apply (sec. 2(3) no. 1 VOB\/B). For a quantity above 110 %, a new price is to be agreed on request (no. 2). Either party may request it, including the employer. For a quantity below 90 %, the unit price for the entire quantity actually performed is to be increased at the contractor's request (no. 3).\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"What is the difference between changed and additional work?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"Changed work (sec. 2(5) VOB\/B) is work provided for in the contract that is to be performed differently on the employer's order. Additional work (sec. 2(6) VOB\/B) is work not provided for in the contract that the employer demands. Only under subsection 6 is notice before the start of the work a condition of the claim.\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Do I have to give notice of a claim for extra pay before starting the work?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"For additional work, yes: the contractor must give notice of the claim to special remuneration before starting performance (sec. 2(6) no. 1 sentence 2 VOB\/B). No form is prescribed, written form is advisable for evidence. Since nobody can predict with certainty how a court will classify the work, notice of a claim for extra pay should always be given in writing before performance, for changes and additional work alike.\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"The employer orders the variation at its own, lower price. What now?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"If the contractor signs without reservation, that price is agreed and can no longer be challenged by either party. If, however, the contractor accepts the order and expressly leaves the price open, it does not agree to the employer's price (sec. 150(2) BGB). No binding price then comes into existence.\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"How is the new price calculated?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"First according to the contract, then according to an agreement between the parties, only then by supplementary interpretation. For an increased quantity under sec. 2(3) no. 2 VOB\/B, the BGH then applies the actually necessary costs plus reasonable mark-ups (BGH, judgment of 08.08.2019 \u2013 VII ZR 34\/18). For changed and additional work, the Kammergericht had already taken the same route (KG, judgment of 10.07.2018 \u2013 21 U 30\/17).\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"May I stop work while the variation is in dispute?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"A mere dispute about the amount of a variation does not entitle the contractor to do so, because under sec. 18(5) VOB\/B disputes do not entitle the contractor to stop work. If a payment that is due remains unpaid despite a reasonable grace period, the contractor may suspend the work (sec. 16(5) no. 4 VOB\/B). Threatening to stop work in order to force a signature on a variation is risky in any event.\"\r\n          }\r\n        }\r\n      ]\r\n    }\r\n  ]\r\n}\r\n<\/script>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Construction Debt collection Companies Employment law Cars Knowledge base EN DE PL Contact us \u2192 \u2630 Home\/Knowledge base\/Construction \u00a7Series: VOB\/B clause by clausepart 1 of 18 VOB\/B Section 2: payment and variation claims from tender to final invoice A unit price is born at the estimator&#8217;s desk. The contract fixes it, and on site it [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":4417,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":"","rank_math_title":"VOB\/B Section 2: pricing and extra work in Germany | BWLAW","rank_math_description":"VOB\/B section 2 from tender to final invoice: quantities over 10 %, subsection 5 or 6, notice of variation claims and the new price under BGH VII ZR 34\/18.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"VOB\/B section 2","rank_math_robots":[]},"class_list":["post-5123","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"bwlaw_import":{"lang":"en","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5123","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5123"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5123\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}