Sub-clause 20.1 of the FIDIC contract terms under civil and common law

• Authors: Dąbrowska Agnieszka
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of the paper is to discuss the problems arising from the application of sub-clause 20.1 of the FIDIC contract templates in the civil and common law countries. For these considerations, the author chose the red and yellow book editions of 1999 in unmodified versions. The paper tries to determine whether it is possible to implement the sub-clause in their original wording in the above-mentioned legal systems. Another aspect under the scrutiny of the author is the legal nature of provisions of 20.1 sub-clause which concern, in particular, the issues related to the 28-day deadline for filing a claim and releasing the contracting authority from the obligation to provide compensation as a result of the Contractor's failure to meet the indicated deadline. The research was conducted using the legal-comparative method. With regard to the civil law system, the analysis concerned the compliance of the sub-clause provisions with mandatory standards, in particular Article 119 of the Civil Code, and Article 353¹ in conjunction with Article 58 of the Civil Code. When it comes to the common law jurisdiction, the study concerned the consequences of failure to comply with the obligation imposed by the sub-clause on the Contractor in the light of the prevention principle and on the basis of praemia that law does not arise from injustice. As a result of the conducted research, it was found that sub-clause 20.1 of the FIDIC contract terms requires prior modifications both in civil and common law countries and adaptation to the requirements of the law in force in the country in which it is to be implemented.

Keywords

EN

FIDIC; civil law; common law; sub-clause 20.1; claim; construction contract

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Prawa w Bielsku-Białej
• Journal: Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Prawa w Bielsku-Białej
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 13-18

Dates

published

2019-12-30

Contributors

author

Dąbrowska Agnieszka

• Department of Sociology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, attorney at law- Poland

References

• [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 113, (HL) per Lord Salmon.
• [1992] Turner Corporation Pty Ltd v Austotel Pty Ltd.
• [2007] CSOH 190; City Inn v Shepherd Construction.
• Bunni, N. (2005). The FIDIC Forms of Contract. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing.
• Decision of Oberlandesgericht München of 16 November 1993, 9 U 3155/93.
• Decision of the District Court in Warsaw of 11 July 2012, XXV C 647/11.
• Decision of the District Court in Warsaw of 11 June 2012, XXV C 567/11.
• Decision of the District Court in Warsaw of 11 April 2016, XXV 561/15.
• Decision of the District Court in Warsaw of 7 March 2012, XXV C 249/11.
• Decision of the Supreme Court of 23 March 2017, V CSK 449/16.
• Decision of the Supreme Court of 19 March 2015, IV CSK 443/14.
• Decision of the Supreme Court of 27 September 2013, I CSK 748/12.
• FIDIC, Warunki kontraktowe dla budowy dla robót inżynieryjno – budowlanych projektowanych przez Zamawiającego, wydanie angielsko-polskie niezmienione 2008 (translation of the 1 issue 1999), (Conditions of contract for construction for building and engineering works designed by the Employer).
• FIDIC, Warunki kontraktowe dla urządzeń oraz projektowania i budowy dla urządzeń elektrycznych i mechanicznych oraz robót inżynieryjnych i budowlanych projektowanych przez wykonawcę wydanie angielsko-polskie niezmienione 2008 z erratą (translation of the 1 issue 1999), (Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build; for electrical and mechanical plant, and for building and engineering works designed by the contractor; General Conditions; Guidance for the preparation of particular conditions; forms of letter of tender, contract Agreement and dispute adjudication agreement).
• Glover, J., (2008). Fidic: An Overview The latest developments, comparisons, claims and a look into the future.
• Klee, L. (2015). International Construction Law. Wiley- Blackwell.
• Kordasiewicz, B. (2008). System Prawa Prywatnego, vol. 2: Prawo cywilne – część ogólna. Warszawa.
• Malinowska, A., (2017). Uwagi w przedmiocie umownego ograniczenia odpowiedzialności deliktowej, Rynek- Społeczeństwo-Kultura, (26).
• NEC, Engineering and Construction Contract, NEC3, 1995.
• Olszewski, A., (2010). Kontraktowe procedury rozwiązywania sporów
• w umowach o roboty budowlane opartych na wzorcach umownych FIDIC –
• w świetle prawa polskiego, Monitor Prawniczy, Legalis.
• Resolution of the Supreme of 19 May 1969, III CZP 5/68.
• Tolson, S. and Glover, J. (2007). Time bars in construction and global claims, [online] Fenwick Elliott. Available at: https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/Time%20bars%20in%20constructions%20contracts%20and%20global%20claims.pdf.majeure
• Wybranowski, A. O karach umownych i Warunkach Kontraktowych FIDIC - Sąd Arbitrażowy przy SIDiR. [online] Sąd Arbitrażowy przy SIDiR. Available at: http://arbitraz-sidir.pl/publikacje/o-karach-umownych-i-warunkach-kontraktowych-fidic/.