Search
Contact
05.10.2018 | KPMG Law Insights

Bill of quantities beats sampling!

Bill of quantities beats sampling!

Approval of a product through sampling does not supersede the specifications of the bill of quantities for the product. This also applies if the client was able to recognize the deviations from the specifications during the sampling.

Decision of the OLG Schleswig of August 18, 2017, Ref. 1 U 11/16

We report on a recently published decision that gives reason to examine the requirements for sampling in construction contracts and to regulate the legal consequences of a selection or approval decision more precisely.

Initial case

Client (hereinafter “Client“) and Contractor (hereinafter “Contractor“) concluded a VOB contract for the laying of tiles in a staircase. The Contractor used tiles without ceramic surface sealing and with a different slip resistance class for the landings as opposed to the stair treads as part of the execution of this contract. This resulted in the tiles on the landings looking stained after completion and acceptance, and increased cleaning requirements. The parties had contractually stipulated that all tiles used must match each other and have the same slip resistance class. The tiles actually used, i.e. also the tiles for the landings without surface sealing, were presented to the customer during a sampling appointment and approved by him. The Contractor demanded payment of the remaining remuneration for the work. The customer counterclaimed and demanded the payment of an advance to remedy the defect.

Decision

The Higher Regional Court of Schleswig ruled that the Contractor’s performance was defective because he had laid tiles that did not comply with the agreed quality. The tiles on the landings and the steps do not match each other because they have different slip resistance class and roughness, and therefore different susceptibility to dirt.

According to the court, the sampling meeting was solely about the selection of the color of the tiles. Therefore, in the present case, the Contractor cannot rely on the fact that the Client had selected the tiles himself within the scope of the sampling appointment. Whether the difference between the step tiles and the other tiles was recognizable during the sampling is even irrelevant in the opinion of the OLG Schleswig. A Baulaie could possibly recognize a certain optical deviation of the tiles. The decisive factor, however, was that he could not recognize the consequences in use without being informed by the expert contractor.

The Higher Regional Court of Schleswig also emphasized that the Contractor could not rely on the price specified in the invitation to tender. It would have been incumbent on him to inform the customer about the advantages and disadvantages of ceramic sealing. Only then would the AG have been able to make a sensible decision as to whether to choose the tiles actually presented or to request higher quality tiles at a higher price.

Practice Notes

The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig makes it clear that the agreed quality of work is generally not determined or changed by the specifications in a sampling appointment. If the parties nevertheless wish to achieve that a sampling to be carried out supersedes the specifications of the bill of quantities, this must be clearly taken into account when drafting the construction contract. For example, wording in the specifications such as “…according to sampling” can be selected for this purpose. Even this brief addition makes it sufficiently clear that the sampling carried out by the Contractor is intended to concretize the specifications of the bill of quantities and therefore takes precedence over them. If the bill of quantities is designed accordingly, it is sufficient at the sampling date that the CL was able to recognize all deviations from the bill of quantities. Further clarification of the Contractor is then not required (see OLG Bremen, judgment of March 16, 2012, Case No. 2 U 94/09). It therefore seems advisable for the Contractor to provide information in appropriate situations about the differences between certain products or makes, for example by providing data sheets or other manufacturer information, and to document this information.

Explore #more

13.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Implementing AI in the legal department – these are the success factors

Artificial intelligence (AI) only benefits the legal department if it is implemented correctly. The technology promises to automate time-consuming routine work and fundamentally improve the…

13.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

First omnibus package to relax CSDDD, CSRD and EU taxonomy obligations

On November 13, 2025, the EU Parliament voted on its negotiating position regarding the so-called omnibus package, which provides for a relaxation of the CSRD,…

12.11.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement in In-house Counsel: More stability under the umbrella of corporate governance

There is a lot of talk about “corporate governance” in the face of multiple crises and regulatory tendencies on the part of legislators. But what…

07.11.2025 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law and KPMG advise Diehl Defence on the acquisition of the Tauber Group

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) and KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft (KPMG) advised Diehl Defence on the acquisition of the Tauber Group. KPMG Law provided legal…

07.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Changes to the H-1B visa and their consequences for US hiring and secondment practices

President Trump’s administration has introduced two significant changes to the highly popular H-1B visa program for skilled workers: The previous random lottery will be replaced…

07.11.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement on HAUFE: Confusion surrounding the EU Deforestation Regulation – and what companies should do now

Possibly, perhaps, under certain circumstances, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) will not be binding for large and medium-sized enterprises on December 30, 2025 and for…

06.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

External personnel: authorities tighten checks with AI support

AI is a blessing for many companies, but it can also quickly become a curse, especially when authorities use the technology to uncover legal violations…

06.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Deforestation regulation – simplification instead of postponement?

In September, the EU Commission wanted to postpone the EUDR deforestation regulation. On October 21, 2025, it published a comprehensive proposal to simplify the EUDR

05.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Employer of Record now not subject to authorization after all – change of heart at BA

On October 1, 2025, the Federal Employment Agency (BA) updated its technical directives and made a U-turn with regard to the so-called employer-of-record model: In…

03.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

CO₂ contracts for difference: Participation in the preliminary procedure is a prerequisite for funding

Companies can apply for funding in the preliminary procedure for the climate protection contracts program until 1 December 2025. The funding from the Federal Ministry…

Contact

Dr. Rainer Algermissen

Partner
Head of Construction and Real Estate Law

Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

Tel.: +49 40 3609945331
ralgermissen@kpmg-law.com

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll