公共工程契約變更之彈性與限制分析

Abstract

公共工程契約常有需要變更工作內容之情事發生，惟如何進行變更及變更後相關權利義務如何處理，遍尋民法付之闕如，而僅能參酌示範條款為之，其中常見有變更調整條款以因應工程過程中各種變更工程的需求，且此已運行有年。但因工程契約在本質上即存有複雜性及不確定性，因而使其產生多變性且雙方易生歧見，因此常藉由定型化契約條款、免責條款或契約計價方式預先為風險分配，惟實務上仍產生許多爭議，是否因上開條款規定文字不夠明確，或是另有其他的原因，就此實務上常以公平合理原則、情事變更原則或是誠信原則處理之。惟上開原則之內容抽象且概括，是否有更妥適解決問題的方法，為本篇論文所要討論之重點。 首先，關於契約工作範圍之解釋，包括：雙方對契約內容看法不一致、契約文件間存有不一致時如何處理，就業主角度，為求最大利益會儘可能將工作範圍做最大的解釋，但承包商則反之以節省成本勞費儘量限縮工作範圍；另外，討論契約上賦予業主之單方指示權，業主依其需求修改圖說之內容，而無庸先得承包商之同意，惟此權利行使後，所增加的費用和時間應如何調整，始符合公平原則，我國示範條款中是否已有明定，本文即在探討變更調整條款之內容，是否有一定的限制。 另外，契約內容之變更是否有所限制，此即牽涉到重大變更理論，在英美法上有許多相關的討論，在我國實務上近來亦漸有案例產生，是否宜參考英美法實務見解處理之。又變更往往須踐行一定的程序，如果業主僅為一定的指示，但卻未依照法定程序，則承包商是否可以請求所增加之費用和延長時間，實務上就此問題是否應引入英美法上之擬制變更理論，或是應如何處理為宜。綜上，本文即以公共工程契約變更過程中可能產生之問題進行討論，進而思考妥適之解決方式。

Changes of work content in public construction contracts are common. Nevertheless, guidelines on how changes should be processed and how relevant rights and obligations after the changes should be handled are nearly non-existent in the Civil Code. Model clauses are the only references; among them, changes clauses are common, which have been used for years in response to the need for changes during construction process. The complicated, uncertain and changeable nature of construction contracts can easily cause disagreement among the parties. As a result, risks are often allocated through standard form contract terms, exception clauses, or contractual pricing methods. In practice, disputes still abound, be it due to the ambiguous language of the aforementioned clauses and regulations, or other factors. The principles of fairness and reasonableness, the principle of change of circumstances, and the principle of good faith are often used to address the disputes, in spite of their abstract and generalized content. Whether more proper solutions are available becomes the main focus of this study. First, the interpretation of contractual scope of work includes solutions to handling different opinions over contractual content and discrepancies in contractual documents between the parties; the owner may define the scope of work as broadly as possible for maximum benefits, while the contractor attempts to save material and labor costs. Additionally, the owner ’s right given by the contract to make unilateral changes permits the owner to modify drawings based on one’s needs without the consent of the contractor. Yet, how extra fees and time should be adjusted to conform to the principle of fairness after the right is exercised, and whether our model clauses have specified this area remain to be an issue. In light of this, the current study attempts to explore whether there are certain restrictions regarding the content of changes clauses. Restrictions of contract changes involve the cardinal change doctrine, which has been widely discussed in Common Law. Relevant cases have also emerged in Taiwan, and one question is whether it is proper to refer to Common Law’s practices and interpretations. Besides, since changes shall be made following certain process, some issues need to be considered when the owner does not follow legal process to order changes. Namely: whether the contractor can claim additional payment and request extra time, whether the constructive change doctrine in Common Law should be introduced to solve this problem, or how else this kind of problem can be properly solved. In sum, the study discusses potential problems that may result from construction contract changes and contemplates on possible proper solutions.