labor contract: Calatrava convicted in the Supreme

Responsabilidad

 

The Supreme Court confirmed the sentence of Santiago Calatrava LLC to pay € 2,960,781 for the differences arising in contract work with Jovellanos XXI.


In August 2002, Santiago Calatrava LLC (hereinafter SC) y Jovellanos XXI (hereinafter JXXI) They entered into an collaboration contract por el que la primera prestaría determinados servicios de arquitectura e ingeniería, involving the development of a project to build two housing complexes in Oviedo.

Surgidas las diferencias entre ambas SC reclamó a Jovellanos XXI, 7.285.000 euros por los trabajos realizados. Frente a dicha petición JXXI formuló reconvención reclamando 25.825.376 euros, by constructive and contractual deficiencies of the work.

The Court of First Instance No. 10 Oviedo dismissed the demand for SC and partially upheld the counterclaim JXXI condemning the first to pay 3.272.659 euros.

SC appealed and la Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo estimó su demanda, JXXI condemning the payment of € 7,285,000 and simultaneously partially upheld the counterclaim JXXI, SC condemning the payment of € 10,245,781, and compensating both amounts, He is leaving a balance in favor of JXXI of 2,960,781 €.

SC appealed to the Supreme Court interposing an extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement (which it was declared inadmissible) and appeal.

El primero de los motivos niega la legitimación de JXXI para reclamar por la caída de la cimbra del hormigonado del graderío, relying on the benefit of improper solidarity, when the appellant's, la responsabilidad de los agentes en el proceso constructivo es mancomunada. La Sala desestima el motivo. Not Applicable Law Construction Planning, pues el daño no está sujeto a la misma sino que se trata de un daño entre partes, repaired by the defendant before the reception of the work. Not applicable for both the LOE and the case law on Article 1.591 the C.C., but we are facing the contractual responsibility for damages of art. 1.101 the C.C. The room features two basis points of responsibility:

  1. SC was responsible for the project management and implementation and therefore responsible for putting the right people to run the project.
  2. Hiring an internationally renowned architect should be correlative to the demand for accountability.

The second plea alleges breach of Articles 1.137, 1.138 and 1.145 the C.C. en cuanto al resultado de la inmovilidad de la cubierta del Palacio de Congresos. For the Board, mobility was one of the hallmarks of the project and if not achieved, estamos ante un incumplimiento contractual. Se trata de un contrato de obra en el cual, se debe conseguir un resultado concreto. La no consecución de dicha movilidad ha generado un daño evaluable a la promotora.

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the Provincial Court of Oviedo is confirmed 6 February 2014, Jovellanos XXI condemning the payment of the amounts due and Santiago Calatrava LLC to the damage caused by its responsibility in the construction contract.

Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter




Subscribe me

* This field is required