The investor is the host of a construction project and, in practice, it is the investor who decides on the wording of the agreement with the general contractor, including the contractor’s activity in execution of the project. It is the investor who decides how the construction process is organised. But investors have different preferences: they do not always want to precisely track the course of works, and that may not be feasible. Therefore, the agreement with the contractor should be tailored to the adopted model of cooperation and take into account the possible level of control by the investor of the general contractor’s activities.
Is subcontracting easier? The effects of the amendment of Art. 647¹ of the Civil Code two years after adoption
Art. 647¹ of the Civil Code, providing for the investor’s secondary liability for the contractor’s debts to subcontractors, was introduced into the Polish legal system in 2003. In April 2017, the parliament amended it thoroughly in adopting the Act Amending Certain Acts to Facilitate Debt Recovery. Two years after implementation, we try to answer the question whether the title of the amending act corresponds to reality and subcontractors really have a better chance of receiving payment for their work.
Art. 6491–6495 of the Civil Code is intended to ensure that the security in the form of a payment guarantee for construction works provided at the investor’s request secures timely payment of the contractor’s fee. However, one may suspect that in practice this instrument is used for a completely different purpose.
The Public Procurement Law provides for rules autonomous from the Civil Code for settlements with subcontractors. The regulations apply independently of each other, but they are applied in parallel to contracts concluded under the public procurement regime.
Between a rock and a hard place: General contractors squeezed by investors’ joint and several liability regime
Od czasu wprowadzenia do Kodeksu cywilnego, a później również do Prawa zamówień publicznych, przepisów o solidarnej odpowiedzialności inwestora za zapłatę należną podwykonawcom robót budowlanych, generalni wykonawcy znajdują się w swoistym potrzasku – między koniecznością nadzoru i dyscyplinowania podwykonawców a presją inwestora, by ich rozliczać.
A building covered by the Warsaw Decree – attempt to revise the post-war legal status of buildings in Warsaw
When assessing the post-war legal status of buildings erected on land subject to the Warsaw Decree, there is currently greater focus on the circumstances surrounding wartime destruction of buildings and the fact that decree-related proceedings are ongoing. This is intended to take away or restrict ownership title to “budynki piątkowe” – buildings fulfilling requirements under Art. 5 of the Warsaw (Bierut) Decree. Meanwhile, the structure of a “decree building” is a refined legal concept that needs to be viewed in the context of laws and case law in effect at the time.