The seller reports previous cracks. A mining company paid for them, after which the house was repaired. You receive individual invoices and an older letter. For your decision, two different questions therefore remain open: What was actually technically remedied and what was legally agreed at the time?
Understand the earlier handling as a complete process
Our editorial recommendation: Request any existing findings, correspondence, agreements, payments and evidence of the work carried out. Organise them by date and by the part of the building affected. A payment receipt alone shows neither the full cause of the damage nor the complete scope of the repair work.
In particular, have it clarified whether the documents refer to the same locations. If an old letter describes only one part of the building, you must not treat it without examination as a comprehensive settlement of all damages to the house. Add which later changes or observations are known.
Technically examine current condition and the original cause
An appropriate specialist should assess the current condition and the informative value of the existing findings. The article does not diagnose a mining damage (Bergschaden) from the presence of cracks. A previous payment is also not a general technical proof that any movement is excluded today.
§114 BBergG describes the statutory framework for mining damage and lists exceptions. §120 contains a presumption of mining damage (Bergschadensvermutung) with certain conditions and exceptions; when invoking the presumption regulated there, construction and inspection documents can also be relevant. [BERGSCHADEN] [VERMUTUNG] These provisions neither replace a concrete determination of cause nor the examination of the applicable liability framework.
Have the old agreement read legally
Present the legal advisor with the complete original wording including annexes. Ask which damages and periods were covered, whether a settlement or waiver provision is included and what its significance may be for your intended purchase.
Do not infer either comprehensive future claims or their complete exclusion from the heading “Entschädigung”. The handling of claims already arisen and any possible transfer must also be clarified on the basis of the purchase contract and the individual case. This article does not assert any automatic transfer of claims.
Hypothetical case: The façade invoice fits only part
A buyer receives an invoice for closing cracks in the façades. The older settlement letter also names a different part of the building. For this there is no proof of the work having been carried out. The buyer had initially understood both documents as a closed chain of repair.
She now has the technical gap and the legal scope of the letter assessed separately. A missing proof does not yet demonstrate an ongoing damage. But it is also not a confirmed complete remedy. Only the clarified result can be incorporated into price, financing and the purchase contract.
Do not base a decision on a blanket “done”
Finally, bring together the current findings, documented previous work and stated contractual consequences. A previous settlement can provide important information, but by itself it is not a general seal of quality for the building. If essential documents are missing, specify precisely this gap before the binding decision. That way you assess the condition actually clarified and the legal situation that fits it.