政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/145900
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51036165      線上人數 : 904
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145900


    題名: 工程現場情況差異之研究—國際工程司法實務與我國之比較
    A Study on Differing Site Conditions - A Comparison with International Jurisdiction on Construction Project
    作者: 彭馳
    Peng, Chih
    貢獻者: 顏玉明
    彭馳
    Peng, Chih
    關鍵詞: FIDIC
    翠皮書
    美國聯邦採購規則
    異常工地狀況
    現場情況差異
    地下工程
    工程
    不可預見之物理條件
    不能合理預見
    不可預見性
    風險分配
    GBR
    大地工程基線報告
    FIDIC
    Federal Acquisition Regulation
    Differing Site Conditions
    Unforeseeable Physical Conditions
    Underground Construction
    Engineering
    Risk Allocation
    Reasonably Unforeseeable
    Unforeseeability
    GBR
    Geotechnical Baseline Report
    日期: 2023
    上傳時間: 2023-07-06 16:55:24 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 工程現場情況差異為營建工程經常面臨之風險。當工程契約當事人合理預期之工地地質、水文地質或地工屬性與實際施工時所遭遇之情形有實質性差異時，即謂遭遇現場情況差異，當事人因此常需支出應對地質風險之額外費用，在地下工程領域尤為明顯。關於地下工程之特性，其所採用之施工方法乃成功完成工程專案之主要因素。施工方法則取決於工地之現場情況、地下物理條件，因為這些大地屬性特徵攸關工程成敗、工期長短及成本高低。然而，工程現場情況之調查技術有其侷限，隱蔽於地下之情況難以完全藉由現場調查掌握，因此經常發生工程設計所預估之現場情況與實際情況有重大差異之情形。地下工程之特性同時顯現其獨特之風險，即工地現場之實際情況與原先預期的情況可能不一樣的風險，稱為「現場情況差異之風險」。因為難以藉由調查完全掌握，地下條件有其不確定性。除了承攬人傾向合理依賴業主所提供之現場情況資訊外，工程等標期之長度也往往不足以進行詳盡之現場調查，甚或有些情況本質上即屬無從於事前被合理預見，因此地下條件通常難以或無法於投標前精確評估。管理現場情況差異風險之做法可藉由提升工程技術將風險降低或排除，當未能降低或排除時，則可藉由風險移轉或風險分配，將該風險歸由合適之一方承擔。

    為了順利達成工程專案之目的，必須有效地控制現場情況差異風險，若欲有效控制，則應合理地分配現場情況差異風險。對此，工程現場情況差異亦為國際工程行業經常面臨之問題，美國聯邦採購規則允許工程承攬人於遭遇特定類型之異常工地狀況時得獲得費用或工期之補償，亦即風險由業主承擔，美國司法實務亦對於請求現場情況差異所生額外費用之要件及爭點累積有豐富案例判決；2019年國際顧問工程師聯合會新推出專用於地下工程之FIDIC翠皮書於風險分配之概念及結果上與美國工程司法實務之作法趨近，可認為二者對於工程現場情況差異之風險分配作法已體現出國際工程慣例之當前經驗及最佳作法，應可作為合理分配現場情況差異風險之借鏡。因此，「國際工程慣例如何合理分配現場情況差異風險？」以及「國外合理分配該風險之作法引入我國之可能性？」即成為本研究之研究問題。

    研究結論歸納總結，國際工程慣例將工程現場情況差異之風險於二種類型下歸由業主承擔，即承攬人所遭遇之現場情況與工程契約所指述者有實質性差異之情形，以及承攬人所遭遇者為未知且不尋常，並與工程慣例所承認相同類型工作所將遭遇之現場情況有實質性差異之情形。此外，對於工程現場情況差異索賠常見之爭點，參照美國司法實務之見解，工程契約對現場情況之指示包含明示與默示、承攬人進行現場勘查之程度要求乃於合理可行之情況下合理謹慎之承攬人標準、業主對其所提供或引述之現場情況資訊之準確性、充分性之免責聲明應具體明確、承攬人對於契約文件之依賴應在合理範圍內、承攬人負有遭遇異常工地狀況時之通知義務，以及實質性差異與不能合理預見之判斷應取決工程慣例。而當承攬人未能依據工程契約之現場情況差異條款請求額外費用時，美國司法實務尚承認其他可供主張之請求權基礎，與現場情況差異條款合理分配地質風險之目的相同。

    美國工程、司法實務與FIDIC翠皮書對於合理分配現場情況差異風險所體現之國際工程慣例最佳作法，研究結果表明皆有可能引入我國司法實務，不論是法院對於工程契約之解釋方法得考量工程慣例與當事人可合理預見之工作範圍、以FIDIC翠皮書條款填補工程契約之漏洞，或是藉由民法情事變更原則之解釋適用、類推適用、法理適用於工程現場情況差異，國內相關學說與法規範皆已提供可行之途徑，為將國際工程司法實務處理工程現場情況差異之作法引入我國司法實務提供法律上、契約解釋、學理上或法理上之基礎。
    Differing Site Conditions pose significant risks in construction projects. When the actual conditions encountered during construction differ materially from the reasonable expectations of site geology, hydrogeology, or geotechnical properties specified in the contract, it is considered as encountering Differing Site Conditions. Parties involved often incur additional costs to address the risks associated with geological uncertainties, particularly in underground construction projects. The success of such projects heavily relies on the chosen construction methods, which are determined by site conditions and subsurface physical characteristics. However, site investigation techniques have limitations, making it challenging to fully grasp the latent or concealed conditions. As a result, material differences often arise between the anticipated site conditions and the actual conditions encountered, leading to Differing Site Conditions. The underground nature of these projects further accentuates the unique risk of encountering unforeseen subsurface conditions. Due to the limitations in fully assessing subsurface conditions, there is inherent uncertainty in underground works. In addition to the contractor`s tendency to reasonably rely on the site condition information provided by the owner, the duration of project bidding phase is often insufficient to conduct thorough site investigations. In some cases, these conditions are essentially unforeseeable beforehand. Therefore, underground conditions are usually difficult or impossible to accurately assess before the bidding stage. Managing the risk of differing site conditions involves reducing or eliminating the risk through improved engineering techniques. When risk reduction or elimination is not feasible, risk transfer or allocation can be employed to assign the risk to the appropriate party.

    Efficient control of the risk of Differing Site Conditions is crucial for successful project outcomes, and achieving this control requires a reasonable allocation of the risk. The issue is prevalent in the international engineering industry as well. In the United States, Federal Acquisition Regulation allows contractors to be compensated for time and cost when encountering certain types of differing site conditions. The US judicial system has also developed extensive case law regarding additional cost claims arising from differing site conditions. In 2019, the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) introduced the FIDIC Emerald Book specifically for underground engineering, aligning its concepts and outcomes of risk allocation with US engineering jurisprudence. Both the US practices and the FIDIC Conditions embody the current international engineering practices and best practices for the reasonable allocation of the risk of differing site conditions. Therefore, "How are differing site conditions reasonably allocated according to international engineering practices?" and "What is the possibility of introducing foreign approaches to the reasonable allocation of this risk in our country?" become the research questions for this study.

    The research findings indicate that international engineering practices allocate the risk of differing site conditions to the owner in two types of situations: when the actual conditions are materially different from those included in the contract documents (Type I) or from those reasonably expected by the project team given the type of work performed on site (Type II). Furthermore, with reference to US engineering jurisprudence, common points of dispute in claims for differing site conditions include explicit and implicit instructions in the engineering contract regarding site conditions, the extent of site investigation required from the contractor under reasonable and diligent standards. The disclaimers of liability of the accuracy and adequacy of the site condition information provided or referred to by the owner should be specific and clear. The contractor`s reliance on the contract documents should be within a reasonable range. The contractor`s duty to notify when encountering differing site conditions, and the determination of material differences and unforeseeability, which should be based on engineering standards. In cases where the contractor is unable to claim additional costs under the differing site conditions clauses of the construction contract, US engineering jurisprudence recognizes other bases for claims that serve the same purpose of reasonably allocating the ground risk.

    The best practices reflected in US engineering and legal practices, as well as the FIDIC Emerald Book, for the reasonable allocation of the risk of differing site conditions in international engineering customs, have the potential to be introduced into our country`s legal practices. Whether considering the interpretation methods of construction contracts by courts, taking into account engineering customs and the reasonable foreseeability of work scope by the parties involved, filling gaps in engineering contracts using provisions from the FIDIC Emerald Book, or application of the Doctrine of Changed Circumstances, or by analogy, legal theory to differing site conditions, feasible approaches have already been provided in domestic scholarly discourse and legal norms. These approaches serve as a legal, contractual interpretation, academic, or theoretical basis for introducing the practices of international engineering jurisprudence on differing site conditions into our country`s legal practices.
    參考文獻: 參考文獻
    一、中文
    （一）專書
    1.王伯儉，工程契約法律實務，二版，元照，2008年10月。
    2.王澤鑑，債法原理，增訂三版，2012年3月。
    3.李家慶，蕭偉松，統包契約相關法律問題之探討，工程與法律的對話，修訂三版，三民，2016年8月。
    4.美國顧問工程師協會，美國Parsons Brinckrhoff公司，設計施工（統包）計畫執行手冊，鍾志明譯，科技圖書，2005年3月。
    5.邱聰智著/姚志明修訂，債編通則下，新訂二版，華泰文化，2014年3月。
    6.林誠二，債法總論新解－體系化解說下，瑞興圖書，2010年3月。
    7.孫森焱，民法債編總論下，2020年4月。
    8.陳自強，違約責任與契約解消，元照，2018年10月。
    9.陳勇強，呂文學，張水波，FIDIC 2017版系列合同條件解析，中國建築工業出版社，2019年4月。
    10.陳秋華，統包工程常見爭議，工程法律實務研析（三），元照，2007年7月。
    11.劉春堂，民法債編通則（上），2021 年10 月。
    12.蕭偉松，現場情況差異爭議問題之探討，工程與法律的對話，修訂三版，三民，2016年。

    （二）學位論文
    1.呂一峰，從業主主控保險之角度分析台灣工程保險之研究，國立臺灣大學土木工程學研究所博士論文，2010年1月。
    2.邱靖貽，公共工程展延工期之分析與研究—以異常工地案例為中心，國立臺灣大學工學院土木工程學系碩士論文，2018年6月。
    3.林幸頎，自國際規範FIDIC標準契約條款論我國工程保險—以保險責任期間為重心，國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文，2009年。

    （三）期刊文章
    1.王祥騮，FIDIC 國際工程契約範本，營建知訊，447期，2020年4月。
    2.吳從周，情事變更原則在工程契約上的幾個實務問題，月旦法學雜誌，296期，2020年1月。
    3.黃立，工程承攬契約中情事變更之適用問題，政大法學評論，119期，2011年2月。
    4.黃立，統包契約與EPC契約解析，月旦法學雜誌，250期，2016年3月。
    5.陳自強，FIDIC工程契約條款在契約法源之地位，仲裁季刊， 90期，2010年4月。
    6.陳聰富，意思表示單方錯誤與雙方錯誤，月旦法學雜誌，325期，2022年6月。
    7.陳錦芳，再談廠商可以因地質差異，向業主請求追加工程款嗎?-我看最高法院106年度台上字第2969號民事判決，技師報，2018年。
    8.葉啟洲，臺灣民法上之情事變更原則，月旦民商法雜誌，62 期，2018 年12月。
    9.顏玉明，工程變更（Variation）之探討—以異常地質（Different Site Conditions）為對象，律師雜誌，282期，2003年3月。

    （四）政府機關刊物與研究報告
    1.行政院公共工程委員會，統包工程採購契約範本，2022.4.29版本。
    2.歐來成，工程與法律的對話研討會-雪山隧道工程爭議處理經驗分享：議題三：高風險工程所面臨之投保困難，2011年11月。
    3.顏玉明，FIDIC 國際工程標準契約與工程採購契約要項相關問題之研究，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫，2010年。
    4.顏玉明，司法院司法智識庫，民事類承攬爭議—情事變更原則，解析：臺灣高等法院臺南分院民事93上字第16號裁判。網址：https://fjudkm.judicial.gov.tw/index_doc.aspx?par=JPd8TExdd0Vk3rE06c7UKWRo%2f7Juhphq7tBCsEAIpnAQ9e46GlKPtQ%3d%3d（最後瀏覽日：2023年6月5日）

    （五）法院判決
    1.最高法院 100 年度台上字第 471 號民事判決
    2.最高法院106年度台上字第39號民事判決
    3.最高法院106年度台上字第2969號民事判決
    4.臺灣高等法院93年度重上字第362號判決
    5.臺灣高等法院 99 年建上字第 11 號民事判決
    6.臺灣高等法院104年度建上更(一)字第7號民事判決

    二、外文
    （一）專書
    1.L. Soldo; E. M. Pizzarotti; G. Russo, Preliminary Risk Assessment, Handbook on Tunnels and Underground Works Volume 1(2022).
    2.M Beutler; E Gentilcore, Model Jury Instructions: Construction Litigation, 2nd Edition(2015).
    3.Smith, C.; Hancock, Common Sense Construction Law, 4th Edition(2009).
    4.Thomas J Kelleher; G Scott Walters, Common Sense Construction Law 4th Edition(2009).

    （二）期刊文章
    1.Awad S. Hanna F.ASCE; Justin R. Swanson; Diane G. Aoun, Proper Risk Allocation during Construction: Differing Site Conditions, Journal of Legal Affair and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 20146(4)(2014).
    2.Ibrahim Osman, S.M.ASCE1; Hossein Ataei, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE2; Abolfazl Seyrfar, S.M.ASCE, Differing Site Conditions: Clarifying Misunderstandings to Reduce Costly Litigation, ASCE Journal of Legal Affair and Dispute Resolution of Engineering and Construction, 14(2)(2022).
    3.Ibbs, W., P. Razav, Foreseeability in Construction, ASCE Journal of Legal Affair and Dispute Resolution of Engineering and Construction, 6(4)(2014).
    4.JB Kim, Differing Site Conditions: Contrasting the English and US Legal Systems, Construction Law International(Magazine of the IBA International Construction Projects Committee)(2020).
    5.Thomas, H. R., G. R. Smith, and R. M.. Ponderlick, Resolving contract disputes based on differing-site-conditions clause, ASCE Journal of Legal Affair and Dispute Resolution of Engineering and Construction,118(4)(1992).
    6.Thomas, H. R., Not finding anything different and not reviewing all documents defeats DSC claim, ASCE Journal of Legal Affair and Dispute Resolution of Engineering and Construction, 1(1)(2009).
    7.Thomas, H. R., Some principles applied to DSC claims, ASCE Journal of Legal Affair and Dispute Resolution of Engineering and Construction, 4(2)(2012).

    （三）法令與機構刊物
    1.American Institute of Architect, A201 2017, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.
    2.FIDIC Yellow Book 2017.
    3.FIDIC Emerald Book 2019.
    4.U.S.A. Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.236-2 Differing Site Conditions

    （四）法院判決
    1.Arundel Corp. v. United States, 66 S.Ct. 166, Supreme Court of the United States(1945).
    2.Bilotta Constr. v. Village of Mamaroneck, 604 N.Y.S.2d 966, 199 A.D.2d 230, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York(1993).
    3.Eastern Tunneling Corp., v. Southgate Sanitation District, 487 F.Supp. 109, United States District Court, D. Colorado(1979).
    4.E. H. Morrill Co. v. State, 423 P.2d 551, 65 Cal.2d 787, Supreme Court of California, In Bank(1967).
    5.Farnsworth & Chambers Co. v. United States, 346 F.2d 577, United States Court of Claims(1965).
    6.Foster Constr. C. A. & Williams Bros. Co. v. United States, 435 F.2d 873, United States Court of Claims(1970).
    7.Groton Bridge Mfg Co. v Alabama & V. Ry Co., 31 So. 739, 80 Miss. 162, Supreme Court of Mississippi(1902).
    8.Mineral Park Land Co. v. Howard, 172 Cal. 289, Supreme Court of California(1916).
    9.Metropolitan Sewerage Com. v. R. W. Constr., 72 Wis.2d 365, Supreme Court of Wisconsin(1976).
    10.McDevitt & Street Co. v. Marriott Corp., 713 F.Supp. 906, United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division(1989).
    11.Mojave Enterprises v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 353, United States Claims Court(1983).
    12.Pinkerton & Laws Co. v. Roadway Express, Inc., 650 F.Supp. 1138, United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division(1986).
    13.Ray D. Lowder, Inc. v N. C. State Highway Comm`n, 217 S.E.2d 682, 26 N.C.App. 622, Court of Appeals of North Carolina(1975).
    14.Robert E. McKee, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 414 F.Supp. 957, United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division(1976).
    15.Stenerson v. Kalispell, 629 P.2d 773, 193 Mont. 8, Supreme Court of Montana(1981).
    16.Stuyvesant Dredging Co. v. United States, 834 F.2d 1576, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit(1987).
    17.United States v. Spearin, 39 S.Ct. 59, Supreme Court of the United States(1918).
    18.Umpqua River Navigation Co. v. Crescent City Harbor District, 618 F.2d 588, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit(1980).
    19.Vann v. United States, 420 F.2d 968, 420 F.2d 968, United States Court of Claims(1970).
    20.W. H. Lyman, Constr. Co. v. Gurnee, 84 Ill.App.3d 28, Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District(1980).
    21.Warner Constr. Corp. v. Los Angeles, 2 Cal.3d 285, Supreme Court of California, In Bank(1970).
    22.Wiechmann Engineers v. State ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks, 107 Cal.Rptr. 529, 31 Cal.App.3d 741, Court of Appeal, Third District, California(1973).
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    108652009
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108652009
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[法律科際整合研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    200901.pdf3119KbAdobe PDF240檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋