工程重大變更理論之研究

Abstract

不論政府公共工程或私人營造工程，於現行工程契約實務，營建工程契約均會於工程契約條款中賦予業主指示變更權，使業主具有單方變更契約內容之權利。如業主指示承包商為變更之內容過於劇烈，於英美法系下，業主之指示變更將構成重大變更，並發生相應之法律效果，也就是所謂「重大變更理論」。 關於業主指示變更權之限制，以及逾越該限制之法律效果，我國審判實務及學術論著並無過多討論，本文以「契約解釋」為主軸，形成一套重大變更理論得移植適用於我國審判實務之法學方法論。亦即，業主之指示變更權實為：「承攬人與定作人（事前）合意，定作人於不逾越工程契約之通常範疇內，得具有單方變更承攬人工作內容之權利」；是於業主之指示逾越工程契約之通常範疇之情形，依據上開解釋，承包商得主張：（一）拒絕履行業主指示之工作內容：蓋指示變更之內容並非營建工程契約之一部；（二）終止工程契約：蓋此際指示變更諭有「預示拒絕受領」舊工作物之意涵，屬業主民法第507條第1項協力義務之違反，承包商得依同條第2項請求終止契約；（三）請求合理報酬：蓋如承包商繼續履行業主指示，實屬「嗣後默示同意」業主指示變更之內容得作為契約一部，承包商得依民法第491條規定請求業主支付合理報酬。 於不同類型之營建工程契約下，重大變更之判斷標準會相應調整；而由於該當重大變更之情形較為罕見，是其爭議性極高，甚易傷害當事人間之信賴關係，故本文建議當事人應預先於營建工程契約中納入我國仲裁協會於105年12月公布之工程爭議裁決機制或工程爭議審議機制，藉由專業、中立之委員會，迅速彌平相關爭議。

Regardless of whether it is a public or a private construction project, in the current construction contract practice, based on the change clause, the construction contract will entitle the owner the right to unilaterally change the contents of the contract. If the change instructed from the owner is too drastic, under the common law, the owner's instruction will constitute a 'Cardinal Change', and the corresponding legal effects will occur. This series of situations is also known as the 'Cardinal Change Doctrine'. There is not much discussion on the limitation of the owner's instruction right and the legal effects of exceeding the limitation in Taiwan. Based on the “contract interpretation”, this paper would like to apply the Cardinal Change Doctrine, by jurisprudence methodology, into Taiwanese judicial practice. Hence, in my opinion, the owner’s instruction right shall be interpreted as: “The contractor and the owner agree (in advance) that the contractor may unilaterally change the content of the contractor's work within the general scope of the construction contract”. Due to this, in the event that the owner’s instructions exceed the general scope of the contract, the contractor may claim (1)refusal to perform the work instructed by the owner: it’s because the content of the change in the instructions is not part of the construction contract; (2)termination of the contract: it’s because the change in the instructions has the meaning of “refusal to accept the old work in advance”, as such, the contractor may request to terminate the contract by Article 507 of the civil code; (3)request for reasonable remuneration: it’s because the contractor’s continued performance to the owner’s instructions constitutes a “subsequent implied consent” which means the contractor agrees with that the content of the change in the instructions could be part of the contract, so the contractor may request the owner to pay reasonable remuneration by Article 491 of the civil code. The criteria for determining Cardinal Change will be adjusted accordingly under different types of construction contracts. Since Cardinal Change is relatively rare, always accompanied with highly controversial, and could easily damage the relationship between the parties, therefore, I suggest the parties should incorporate the DAB(or the DRB) mechanisms, announced by the Chinese Arbitration Association in December 2016, into the construction contract in advance, so that the relevant disputes can be quickly settled by the professional and neutral committee.