Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159158
|
| Title: | 工程契約中共同遲延之認定及責任分擔
A Study on Identification and Apportionment of Concurrent Delays in Construction Contracts |
| Authors: | 劉允婷
Liu, Yun-Ting |
| Contributors: | 顏玉明
Yan, Yuh-Ming
劉允婷
Liu, Yun-Ting |
| Keywords: | 工程遲延
共同遲延
工期展延
Construction Delays
Concurrent Delay
Extension of Time（EOT） |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-09-01 15:24:46 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 工程遲延在工程爭議案件中，為一常見議題，而遲延的發生原因，包含「可歸責於承攬人之遲延事由」、「可歸責於定作人之遲延事由」和「不可歸責於雙方之遲延事由」，若工程遲延發生的原因包含上述兩個（或）以上，即涉及共同遲延，又由於包含上述兩個（或）以上之遲延事由，導致如何進行責任分擔，成為一大難題。
目前各國對於共同遲延之認定及責任分擔，尚未有統一的見解，故本論文透過整理外國文獻，包含：國際工程協會發布之議定書或指南、外國期刊文章等，了解英國法與美國法就共同遲延之認定及責任分擔方式，復藉由司法實務判決，了解法院於具體個案上係如何認定共同遲延，以及如何決定責任分擔，以供我國借鑑參考。
共同遲延之組合，有多種可能，本論文係以「可歸責於承攬人之遲延事由」與「可歸責於定作人之遲延事由」為探討主軸，並透過借鑑英國法及美國法，建議以「二遲延事件之遲延期間須有重疊期間，且遲延事件均須位於要逕上」，為共同遲延之認定方式，在責任分擔上，則建議使承攬人得就「可歸責於定作人的遲延日數展延工期」，且得就「單獨可歸責於定作人之遲延期間請求損害補償」，而定作人得就展延後，剩餘之遲延日數，向承攬人請求逾期違約金。
Construction delay is a common issue in construction dispute cases. The causes of delay include: "contractor-responsible delays," "owner-responsible delays," and " delays not attributable to either party ". When the cause of a construction delay involves two or more of the above-mentioned categories, it constitutes a concurrent delay. As such, the involvement of multiple types of delay makes the apportionment of liability a significant challenge.
Currently, there is no unified international consensus regarding the identification of concurrent delay and the apportionment of liability. This thesis therefore reviews foreign literature—including protocols and guidelines issued by international engineering associations, as well as academic journal articles—to understand how English and American law approach the identification of concurrent delay and methods of apportioning liability. It also examines judicial decisions to explore how courts have identified concurrent delay and determined liability apportionment in specific cases, in order to offer insights for potential application in Taiwan.
There are various possible combinations of concurrent delay. This thesis focuses on the combination of delays attributable to the contractor and delays attributable to the employer. Drawing upon English and American legal approaches, it is recommended that concurrent delay be identified where (1) the delay periods of the two events overlap, and (2) both delay events lie on the critical path. As for apportionment of liability, this thesis proposes that the contractor should be granted an extension of time corresponding to the number of days attributable to the employer’s delay and may claim damages for the delay period solely caused by the employer. Accordingly, the employer may claim liquidated damages for the remaining delay period after such extension. |
| Reference: | 一、中文文獻
（一）專書
1.王伯儉，工程契約法律實務，三版，元照出版公司。
2.李有容，什麼是「要徑」？什麼是「浮時」？，收錄於「工程法律實務研析（八）－100個從開工、完工到保固不可不知的重要事項」，陳秋華、王雪娟主編，元照出版公司，2019年9月。
3.林耀煌，營建工程施工規劃與管理控制，長松出版社，2005年。
4.葉啟洲，保險法，八版，元照出版公司，2023年9月。
5.顏玉明，工程要徑與浮時之爭議，收錄於「工程爭議問題與實務（一）」，中華民國仲裁協會，2010 年12 月。
6.顏玉明，營建工程工期問題之探討，收錄於「工程法律實務研析（二）」，古嘉諄、陳希佳、顏玉明主編，元照出版公司。
（二）學位論文
1.王涵薇，論公共工程逾期違約金問題之研究，國立高雄大學財經法律學系研所碩士論文，2022年8月。
2.吳翔文，工程遲延相關爭議問題研究，國立臺北大學法律專業研究所碩士論文，2007年。
3.李昇蓉，承包商對營建工程工期遲延及阻擾（Disruption）之索賠，國立政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，2009年。
4.林聰意，營建專案共同遲延責任分配之研究，國立高雄第一科技大學營建工程系碩士論文，2008年。
5.高志魁，時程遲延分析技術之建立與實證研究，中華大學科技管理研究所博士論文，2009年2月。
6.張嘉琪，共同遲延責任分配之系統化分析方法，國立中央大學營建管理所碩士論文，2007年。
7.陳純敬，我國公共工程施工契約常見爭議法律關係研究，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，2008年。
8.黃豐玢，論高科技工程契約工期展延之風險分擔原則，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，2015年8月。
9.劉世翰，營建工程遲延索賠請求之研究－以工程會工程採購契約範本及FIDIC標準契約條款新紅皮書比較為中心，東吳大學法學院暨法律學系碩士論文，2023年2月。
10.蔡奇成，以分配浮時擁有權為基礎之遲延分析方法，國立臺灣大學工學院土木工程學系博士論文，2014年。
11.羅尹廷，公共工程工期爭議與處理對策之探討，國立臺灣科技大學營建工程系碩士論文，2017年。
（三）期刊文章
1.潘欣榮，公共工程契約中共同遲延法律責任問題之研究：從英美法與FIDIC條款之規定看我國法上之解釋適用問題，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第41卷第1期，2012年3月。
2.鄧勝軒，公共工程工期展延浮時所有權爭議的探討，技師報，第952期，2015年3月7日。
3.鄧勝軒，公共工程契約共同遲延法律爭議問題，財產法暨經濟法，第67期，2022年3月。
4.鄧勝軒、黃世昌，公共工程進度展延爭議的探討，工程仲裁，92期，2010年12月。
5.藍炳強，工期爭議案索賠之準備（上），營建知訊，第272期，2005年10月。
6.藍瀛芳，工程契約之遲延類型，營建知訊，210期，2007年7月。
7.顏玉明，營建工程契約進度及工期問題之探討，月旦法學雜誌，129期，2006年2月。
（四）政府機關刊物與研究報告
1.行政院公共工程委員會，工程採購契約管理。
2.行政院公共工程委員會，工程採購契約範本（1121115修正）。
（五）法院判決
1.臺灣高等法院105年度建上更（一）字第28號民事判決。
2.臺灣高等法院臺中分院105年度建上字第54號民事判決。
3.臺灣臺北地方法院107年度建字第232號民事判決。
4.臺灣臺北地方法院109年度建字第226號民事判決。
5.臺灣高等法院臺中分院108年度建上字第69號民事判決。
6.臺灣高等法院109年度建上字第42號民事判決。
7.臺灣彰化地方法院109年度建字第10號民事判決。
8.臺北地方法院104年度建字第408號民事判決。
9.臺灣臺中地方法院107年度建字第15號民事判決。
10.臺灣高等法院88年度重上字第4號民事判決。
11.臺灣臺北地方法院105年度建字第435號民事判決。
（六）講義簡報
1.謝定亞，工期展延、同時遲延、衍生費用，台北律師公會工程法律線上課程講義，2023年。
二、外文文獻
（一）專書
1.Bruner & O’Connor on Construction Law (May 2007).
2.Construction Delay Claims, Third Edition, Barry B. Bramble, Esq., Michael T. Callahan, Esq., Aspen Publishers, New York, NY, 2006.
3.How to Get Paid for Construction Changes: Preparation and Resolution Tools and Techniques, Steven S. Pinnell, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1998.
4.R. Peter Davison and John Mullen, Evaluating Contract Claims, 2nd edition, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
5.Robert Frank Cushman & James J. Myers, Construction Law Handbook, Aspen Law & Business, 1999.
6.Stephen Furst and Vivian Ramsey, Keating on construction contracts: third cumulative supplement to the tenth edition, Sweet & Maxwell.
7.W. Stephen Dale and Robert M. D'Onofrio, Construction Schedule Delays, 2024 ed., Thomson Reuters.
8.Wickwire, Jon, Driscoll, Thomas J.,Hurlbut, Stephen B, & Hillman, Scott B., , Construction Scheduling: Preparation, Liability, and Claims, Second Edition, Aspen Publishers, 2003.
（二）期刊文章
1.Alexandre Arlota & Marc-Henrik Werner, Delays in Construction Projects: Relevant Concepts and (Too Many?) Approaches, Construction Law International, March 2020.
2.Daniel G. Quackenbush and Kenneth A. Slavens, Concurrent Delays and Pacing in Construction Contractor Delay Claims, The Construction Lawyer, Vol. 41, Issue 3.
3.David Barry, Concurrent delay in construction law: Lord Drummond Young's volte face, Construction Law Journal, 2011, 27(3).
4.Edward Foyle & Shahed Ahmed, Concurrent Delay Under English and UAE Law: A New Perspective from the English Courts?, Construction Law International, October 2023.
5.Evans M. Barba, P.E, Prospective and Retrospective Time Impact Analysis, Construction Briefings, No. 2005-7.
6.Guven Tezcan, Does the current view on concurrent delay in Thomas Barnes v Blackburn offer clarity or uncertainty?, Construction Law Journal, 2024, 40(7).
7.James K. Bidgood, Jr., Steven L. Reed, and James B. Taylor, Cutting the Knot on Concurrent Delay, Construction Briefings, No. 2008-2.
8.John Livengood and Daniel S. Brennan, Approaches to Concurrent Delay, Construction Lawyer, Winter 2019.
9.John Livengood, Comparison of English and Us Law on Concurrent Delay, Construction Law., Summer 2015.
10.John Marrin QC, Concurrent Delay Revisited, Society of Construction Law article, issue179.
11.Jonathan P. Cohen & Elizabeth Rivera, Methods of Analyzing the Critical Path for Proving Delay Damages and Courts' Preferences, Fidelity & Surety Law Committee Newsletter, Spring 2019.
12.Mark A. Sgarlata, Esq. and Christopher J. Brasco, Esq, Successful Claims Resolution: Understanding The Law Governing Allocation of Risk for Delay and Disruption, Construction Accounting and Taxation, January/February 2005.
13.Mark Nagata, Criticism of the ASCE Schedule Delay Analysis Offsetting Delay Concept, 2018 AACE International Technical Paper, CDR.2818.1.
14.Matthew Cocklin, International approaches to the legal analysis of concurrent delay: is there a solution for English law?, Construction Law Journal, 2014, 30(1).
15.Mischa Balen, Concurrent delay, over-determination and the problem of default rules, Construction Law Journal, 2016, 32(3).
16.Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd, [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC); [2007] B.L.R. 195.
17.Oleksii Liubymyi, Concurrent delay: is England and Wales moving towards the apportionment approach? The novelty of the Thomas Barnes case, Construction Law Journal, 2024, 40(8).
18.Randal W. Wax, Esq. and William P. Farneth, P.E., Basic Analysis for Delay and Disruption Claims, Construction Briefings, No. 2005-12.
19.Richard N.M. Anderson, Analysing concurrent delays, Construction Law Journal, 2008, 24(7).
20.Roberta Downey, Time: Winning Delay Claims, Construction Law International, March 2020.
21.Scott, S. and R.A. Harris, United Kingdom Construction Claims: Views of Professionals, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2004.
22.Sgarlata, M. A., & Brasco, C. J., Successful Claims Resolution: Understanding the Law Governing Allocation of Risk for Delay and Disruption, Construction Accounting & Taxation, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, (Jan/Feb 2005).
23.Stephen A. Hess, Who Should Own the Float?, The American College of Construction Lawyers Journal, Volume 4, Issue 1.(2010).
24.V. Ostrowski & M. Midgette, Concurrent Delay Analysis in Litigation, Cost Engineering, Vol.48/No.1, January 2006.
25.Vincent Moran, Causation in Construction Law: The demise of the ‘dominant cause’ test? (A paper presented to the SCL at meetings in Reading on 8 May and Glasgow on 15 May 2014).
26.W. Stephen Dale, Esq., Robert M. D'Onofrio, P.E., Reconciling Concurrency in Schedule Delay and Constructive Acceleration, Public Contract Law Journal, Winter, 2010.
27.Zaki M. Kraiem and James E. Diekmann, Concurrent Delays In Construction Projects, journal of construction and management, Vol.113, No.4, 1987.
（三）法令與機構刊物
1.American Society of Civil Engineers, Schedule Delay Analysis, Standard ANSI/ASCE/CI 67-17.
2.Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineers, AACE International Recommended Practice 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis.
3.Federal Acquisition Regulation, 52.249-10.
4.FIDIC, The New Red Book.
5.Society of Construction Law, Delay and Disruption Protocol 2nd edition (2017).
6.Society of Construction Law, Delay and Disruption Protocol.
（四）英格蘭與威爾斯法院判決
1.Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm).
2.H Fairweather & Co Ltd v London Borough of Wandsworth (1987) 39 BLR 106 (OR).
3.Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd 70 Con. L.R. 32; [1999].
4.Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd v Fenice Investments Inc [2011] EWHC 1935 (TCC).
5.Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC).
6.North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1744.
7.North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1744.
8.Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v. Frederick A Hammond & Ors [2000] EWHC Technology 39.
9.Saga Cruises BDF Ltd & Anor v Fincantieri SPA [2016] EWHC 1875.
10.Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc (In Administration) v Blackburn with Darwen BC [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC).
11.Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Mackay & Anor [2012] EWHC 1773.
（五）蘇格蘭法院判決
1.City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2007] Scot CS CSOH_190.
（六）澳洲法院判決
1.Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd v Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 85.
（七）美國法院判決
1.Acme Process Equip. Co. v. United States, 347 F.2d 509 (Ct. Cl. 1965).
2.Blinderman Const. Co. v. United States, 695 F.2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1982).
3.Caldwell & Drake v. Schmulbach, 175 F. 429 (C.C.N.D.W. Va. 1909).
4.Calumet Const. Corp. v. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 127 Ill.Dec. 581, 584, 178 Ill.App.3d 415, 420, 533 N.E.2d 453, 456 (1988).
5.E. C. Ernst, Inc. v. Manhattan Const. Co. of Texas, 551 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1977).
6.East Coast Repair & Fabrication, LLC v. United States, 199 F.Supp.3d 1006 (E.D.Va., 2016).
7.George Sollitt Construction Co v United States, 64 Fed Cl. 229 (2005).
8.Jefferson Hotel Co. v. Brumbaugh, 168 F. 867 (4th Cir. 1909).
9.Marine Indus. Constr., LLC v. United States, 158 Fed. Cl. 158 (2022).
10.Markwest Liberty Midstream & Resources, L.L.C. v. J.F. Allen Co., No. 16-C-82, 2021 WL 9696551.
11.Morganti Nat., Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 110 (2001).
12.PCL Const. Services, Inc. v. U.S., 53 Fed. Cl. 479 (2002).
13.Peabody N.E., Inc. v. Town of Marshfield, 426 Mass. 436, 689 N.E.2d 774 (1998).
14.Plack v. United States, 66 Ct. Cl. 641 (1929).
15.Raymond Constructors of Africa, Ltd v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 147 (Ct.Cl. 1969).
16.Sauer Inc. v. Danzig, 224 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
17.Slone Associates, Inc. v. United States, 166 Fed.Cl. 771 (2023).
18.Slone Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 166 Fed. Cl. 771 (2023).
19.United States, for the use of Belt Con Construction, Inc. v. Metric Constr. Co., Inc., No. 02-1398JB, 2007 WL 1302606.
（八）美國上訴委員會之判斷書
1.Appeal of Hawaiian Dredging & Const. Co., ASBCA No. 25594, 84-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 17290 (Mar. 29, 1984).
2.Appeal of Heat Exchangers, Inc., ASBCA No. 8705, 1963 BCA.
3.Appeal of Utley-James, Inc., GSBCA No. 5370, 85-1 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 17816 (Dec. 21, 1984).
4.Chas. I. Cunningham Co., IBCA 60, 57-2 BCA P1541 (1957).
5.In re Dawson Construction Co. 5, GSBCA No. 398, 75-2 BCA.
（九）政府機關刊物
1.Standards Australia, AS 2124-1992.
（十）網路資料
1.Barry Herholdt, Concurrent Delays under the New FIDIC Red Book, First Aid for Contracts, MDA Consulting, Fourth Edition, April 2018, available at: https://www.mdaconsulting.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FIDIC-April-2018.pdf (last visited 2025.05.26).
2.Graham Lovett and Ryan Whelan, Comparative Approaches to Concurrent Delay, Global Arbitration Review, October 2023, available at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-construction-arbitration/fifth-edition/article/comparative-approaches-concurrent-delay (last visited 2025.05.26).
3.Mark Boe, Identifying Concurrent Delay, 2004, available at: https://www.cpmiteam.com/assets/CauseEffectVol3.pdf (last visited 2025.05.26). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
110651044 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110651044 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 104401.pdf | | 2968Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
