Daily cooperation and legal arrangements often become intertwined on a building project. The client discusses something with the installer, the main contractor disputes the bill and the subcontractor awaits payment. Begin by asking who commissioned which work and on whose behalf. Then bring execution, instructions and money flows together. A construction lawyer can assess which party you should approach and how to prevent a solution elsewhere in the chain from creating new obligations.
Sources (3)
On this page
1. Draw the contract chain before asserting liability
List the client, main contractor and each relevant subcontractor separately. Include legal names, contacts and contractual documents. A van logo or shared project name does not prove the identity of your contracting party. Examine the quotation, appointment confirmation, invoices and correspondence surrounding acceptance. Also record when a business was replaced or a task commissioned directly from another party.
Distinguish someone performing on the main contractor’s behalf from someone holding a separate direct appointment. This affects who can demand payment and from whom repairs must be requested. Have unclear statements examined: a client might, for example, have said a specialist could start without confirming every pricing arrangement. Keep original messages and describe the meaning the parties attributed to them at the time.
2. The main contractor retains their own responsibility
A main contractor generally cannot adequately defend a claim by their client merely by stating that someone else made the error. Statutory rules concerning contracts for work and persons assisting performance are relevant. The Rotterdam judgment consulted confirms responsibility for work under the contractor’s direction. This starting point does not mean every loss, instruction or promise can be attributed to that contractor without further investigation.
Establish which performance the main contractor undertook and the client’s role in relation to the specialist. Where a subcontractor was specified, particular agreements and circumstances may matter. A technical defect must also be connected with the agreed quality, cause and loss. Report the defect specifically to your contracting party and ask how they will organise investigation and any repairs. Addressing only the person performing the work can leave the formal remedy process unclear.
3. Direct consultation is not an unlimited variation order
Direct discussion on site is often unavoidable. A resident indicates a socket position, an architect discusses a detail and a specialist seeks approval for different material. Record who may take these decisions and who confirms the price and schedule consequences. Not everyone present has authority to undertake an additional financial obligation on another party’s behalf.
For a disputed variation, keep the original appointment, new instruction and main contractor’s response. Describe whether the variation has already been executed and whether a price consequence was announced beforehand. For example, an owner tells a tiler to use a different laying pattern, but the main contractor hears only at final invoicing. The lawyer then examines commissioning, authority and applicable rules on additional work; a WhatsApp message must be read in its full context.
4. Separate payments under both relationships
The client’s payment obligation to the main contractor and the main contractor’s obligation to the subcontractor are different obligations. An unpaid subcontractor therefore cannot simply present their invoice to the owner. Conversely, the owner’s payment does not prove that the main contractor discharged their own debt. Prepare one overview showing sums, due dates, partial payments and disputed items for each contract.
Be careful about paying directly to rescue the work. Without clear agreement, disputes may arise about whether you must still pay the main contractor and which work has been settled. Record any three-party arrangement beforehand, including set-off, acknowledgment of receipt and remaining obligations. Also assess whether a party’s financial condition, an attachment or threatened bankruptcy has consequences. A practical payment should not become a leap into an unknown contractual position.
5. Organise repairs without obscuring liability
For a defect, facts come first. Which work is damaged, who worked when and what other causes are possible? A leak may relate to design, installation or a later penetration made by another business. Photograph the situation before dismantling and invite relevant parties to investigate. Explain which emergency measures are necessary to prevent further damage.
Ask your contracting party for a concrete repair proposal and clarify who coordinates the work. The main contractor may seek recovery internally from the subcontractor; that process needs its own evidence and agreements. Do not silently combine offered repairs with a full and final release for all consequential loss. Where several businesses blame each other, joint investigation may help, but agree the questions, costs and access arrangements.
6. Fictional scenario: installation stops after a payment dispute
Suppose a main contractor engages a heat-pump installer for a renovation. The owner pays a construction instalment, but the installer receives nothing and refuses to complete installation. Meanwhile the owner complains of noise. This invented scenario involves at least three issues: performance of the main appointment, payment under the subcontract and technical quality. One general notice of default addressed to everyone does not clarify the distinctions between them.
The owner asks the main contractor for a completion plan and investigation of the noise. The installer collects their own appointment, invoices and installation-condition agreements. If the parties discuss a direct completion appointment, the price, responsibility for earlier work and relationship with the main contract are recorded explicitly. Whether work may be suspended and who bears delay requires assessment of the relevant contracts. The answer is not determined by who stopped first.
7. Prepare your lawyer’s instructions for each relationship
Provide a diagram of the contract chain with the appointments, terms and main messages beneath it. Add an instruction overview: who communicated what, when and with which response? Also maintain payment records and a numbered defect list. Ask the lawyer first to establish which claim or defence exists against whom. This prevents a technically strong file from failing because the identity of the party approached is unclear.
Then discuss the desired outcome for each relationship. Do you want work to continue, an invoice paid, repairs completed or an internal damages claim protected? Also mention forum agreements; different contracts may designate different proceedings. A settlement should identify who performs and pays for each part and which rights remain open. This keeps it clear whether the solution settles the entire dispute or only one link in the construction chain.
Frequently asked questions
Can I directly compel the subcontractor to repair my defect?
Their presence on site does not automatically give you that right. Examine your contracting party and any separate legal basis against the subcontractor.
May I pay the subcontractor directly?
First investigate the consequences for your debt to the main contractor. A clear agreement between all involved may be needed to prevent disputes over double payment.
Is the main contractor always liable for a specified specialist?
Do not assume an absolute answer. Statutory starting points, contractual allocation of tasks and particular circumstances of selection and direction require assessment.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Rechtbank Rotterdam — ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:3372 Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Rechtbank Amsterdam — ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:8070 Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Officiële bekendmakingen — Kamerstuk 28244 nr. 11 Accessed: 2026-10-23
Legal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Construction law in the Netherlands
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.
Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology