Partidas adicionales como obra extraordinaria en un contrato de valor fijo Comentario a la sentencia de la Corte Suprema (Tercera Sala), de 7 de junio de 2017
Construction-works that are not estimated or valued in the accepted offer of a public tendering process are not included in a lump-sum contract price, and constitute extra works. A lump-sum price construction contract does not include works that both the tenderer and the successful bidder (the contr...
Gorde:
| Egile nagusia: | |
|---|---|
| Formatua: | Artikulua |
| Hizkuntza: | Gaztelania |
| Argitaratua: |
2018
|
| Gaiak: | |
| Sarrera elektronikoa: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7175025 |
| Baliabidea: | Revista Jurídica Digital UANDES, ISSN 0719-7942, Vol. 2, Nº. 2, 2018, pags. 115-122 |
| Etiketak: |
Etiketa erantsi
Etiketarik gabe: Izan zaitez lehena erregistro honi etiketa jartzen
|
| Laburpena: |
Construction-works that are not estimated or valued in the accepted offer of a public tendering process are not included in a lump-sum contract price, and constitute extra works. A lump-sum price construction contract does not include works that both the tenderer and the successful bidder (the contractor) consider to be extra. The contractor is not obliged by the contract to execute those extra works. The contractor’s denial to execute the works is not a breach of contract. The Defendant is sentenced to pay for the works effectively executed under the contract, and to restitute to the Plaintiff payment guarantees, even if a legislative mandate considers the tenderer is not a formal party to the contract. The author argues the tenderer is the owner of the land and the works, and that payments to the contractor comply with two purposes. The first is paying for the building, as the owner has to. The second is anticipating public housing subsidies to its final beneficiaries. |
|---|