營建物價調整爭議-由法院判決出發

Abstract

摘要 有鑑於物價調整爭議為常見工程爭議類型，且自武漢肺炎( COVID-19)爆發以來，公共工程履約成本更持續上漲，未來可以想見物價調整爭議仍會持續存在。因此，本文研究近10年有關物價調整爭議之判決，以了解判決准否之認定基準。 本文先整理物價調整爭議之相關文獻，再簡介工程會頒布之物價處理原則、相關工程採購契約範本，及相關函釋。本研究核心係近10年有關物價調整判決，並於文末提出承包商履約管理若干建議。 本研究結果顯示，實務上承包商多依據民法第227條之2「情事變更原則」規定作為物價調整事件請求依據，因而發生「簽訂契約後，能否依據情事變更原則再為請求」之爭議。在「契約未有物價調整條款」情形，多數見解認為應有情事變更原則之適用。至於「有約定物價調整條款」或約定「不為物價調整」情形，判決多半就是否符合民法第227條之2規定之要件評斷，鮮少以當事人間已經有約定物價調整條款為單一理由，逕為認定不得再依據情事變更原則作為請求。 本研究另整理實務判決對於情事變更原則五項構成要件之認定基準，並發現「情事變更事實」、「不可預料」及「是否顯失公平」等要件常互為參劾判斷，其中似又以承包商能否證明有顯失公平之要件最為重要。此外，實務見解通說認為承包商依民法第227條之2情事變更原則請求增加給付者，應有2年之除斥期間適用，且經法院依情事變更判命定作人增加給付者，應適用民法第127條第7款規定之2年時效。 本研究另區分締約前、履約管理期間，以及紛爭處理時，承包商應注意之事項，以供承包商作為物價調整爭議之參考。 關鍵詞：物價調整爭議、情事變更原則、民法第227條之2、除斥期間、不可預料、顯失公平。

ABSTRACT Given that price adjustment disputes are a common type of construction disputes, and the cost of construction has kept rising due to rampant COVID-19, it is conceivable that price adjustment disputes will remain in the future. Therefore, this article studies the judgments on price adjustment disputes in the past 10 years to understand the criteria for determining whether the judgments are approved or not. This study first sorts out the relevant literature on price adjustment disputes, and then introduces the price adjustment principles, the relevant project procurement contract templates, and related correspondence promulgated by the PPC. The core of this study is the judgment on price adjustment in the past 10 years. This study also indicates some points that the contractor should pay attention to in construction management. The results of this study show that contractors mostly rely on Article 227-2 of the Civil Code as the basis for price adjustment cases, so there is a dispute over “whether the request can be made based on the principle of change of circumstances after signing a contract?” In the case of 'there is no price adjustment clause in the contract', most judgments believe that the principle of change of circumstance should be applied. As for 'there is an agreement on price adjustment' or 'not for price adjustment', the judgment is mostly based on whether it meets the requirements of Article 227-2 of the Civil Code. It is rare to see that the principle of change of circumstances cannot be used as a request simply because that the parties have already agreed on price adjustment clauses. This study also sorts out the criteria for determining the five elements of the principle of change of circumstances in practical judgments. And it further finds that the elements of ' the facts of change of circumstances ', 'unpredictable' and 'whether it is obviously unfair' often serve as the basis for each other's judgment. Among them, the most important element is whether the contractor can prove the obvious unfairness. In addition, the general judgments state that if the contractor files a price adjustment dispute with the court in accordance with the principle of change of circumstances in Article 227-2 of the Civil Code, there should be a preemption of two years for the lawsuit. Further, if the court decides to increase the payment according to the change of circumstances, the 2-year statute of limitations stipulated in Article 127, paragraph 7 of the Civil Code should be applied. This study also indicates some points that the contractor should pay attention to before signing the contract, during the contract management period, and when dealing with disputes, for the reference of price adjustment cases. Key words: the price adjustment disputes; the principle of change of circumstances; Article 227-2 of the Civil Code; price adjustment; preemption; unpredictable; obviously unfair.