What may seem clear and transparent to some can sometimes be complex and nuanced for others.
The interpretation of the Civil Code sometimes has such subtleties that even some jurists misunderstand it.
For example, a property owner enters into a "turnkey" contract with a contractor for the construction of a building. During the works, the owner pays the contractor nearly 65% of the agreed price. At the end of the works, the owner accepts the building with reservations due to certain apparent defects and refuses to pay the balance as well as a certain amount for additional works, totaling approximately $150,000.
The contractor registers a legal hypothec and initiates legal proceedings. The Civil Code stipulates that the owner may withhold a sufficient amount from the price until the necessary corrections are made to the work, as approved by an expert designated by the court. Following the report submitted by the expert, appointed by the Court, indicating that $43,000 is required for the corrective works, the Superior Court orders the owner to pay the contractor all amounts due except for the $43,000 retention. This aspect of the dispute is to be resolved later by the court.
The Court of Appeal* overturns the decision of the lower court, although according to these articles, only the amount for corrective works can be withheld. The Court concludes that the owner's counterclaim, based on hidden defects discovered after the acceptance of the work and for which the Superior Court has not yet ruled, could allow the owner to obtain judicial compensation, from any amount that is still unpaid to the contractor. Requiring the owner to pay the entire amounts due, minus $43,000, would deprive them of the possibility to assert their right to judicial compensation from these amounts.
What may seem clear and straightforward to some is sometimes complex and nuanced for others.
*C.A. 200-09-006486-085
