Results found: 1

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: subklauzula 20

Sort By:

Limit search:

Dopuszczalność i skuteczność w prawie polskim zastrzeżenia w umowie o roboty budowlane terminu do zgłoszenia inżynierowi kontraktu roszczenia, o którym mowa w subklauzuli 20.1

100%

Szejna S.

Rejent

2020

issue 12 (356)

46-73

The purpose of this publication is to determine the legal effect of the term reserved in Sub-Clause 20.1 of the FIDIC type for making an Engineer’s notification to the Engineer for a claim for an extension of the contract term or any claim granted under these FIDIC type conditions. The lack of a statutory definition of deadlines in the Civil Code of April 23rd, 1964, and other regulations, makes it difficult to define them. As a consequence, such a state of affairs makes it difficult to resolve the doctrine, case-law and construction practice, the dispute as to the effectiveness of shaping the will of parties to contractual deadlines (including the provision of FIDIC Sub-Clause 20.1). Thus the problem is not only theoretical and, most of all, practical. The decision to avoid the bankruptcy of many construction contractors, who are rarely the weakest party to the construction contract, is required to accept the contractual terms imposed by the Investor (such as Sub-Clause 20.1 FIDIC).

Refine search results

1 Rejent

1 Szejna S.

1 2020

Search results

Dopuszczalność i skuteczność w prawie polskim zastrzeżenia w umowie o roboty budowlane terminu do zgłoszenia inżynierowi kontraktu roszczenia, o którym mowa w subklauzuli 20.1