Over the years port barcelona In some of his duties, he became the protagonist of many legal proceedings, both criminal and civil, that took place in various departments. different extensions. He was sentenced two years ago Managers of construction companies who declared that tons of stones were used for the construction of the dam, indeed and now the Supreme Court has condemned it Barcelona Port Authority will pay approximately $1.2 million to those responsible for the construction of the Prat pier For the installation of containers.
The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Barcelona Regional Court in favor of the Barcelona Port Authority and approved the decision of the 47th Court of First Instance of Barcelona. In May 2017, the Port was ordered to pay Ferrovial Agroman y Construcciones y Estudios (later Cyes Infraestructuras) 565,117 euros plus VAT and interest calculated at 486,695 euros.. He also planned to pay 56,770 euros to Ferrovial Agroman and 64,868 euros to Cyes infrastructure For the costs of maintaining the warranties until delivery in 2014.
In 2004, the Port announced a public tender for “the creation of the necessary infrastructure”. To find a new container terminal in the area called ‘Muelle Prat’ Container Terminal“, for 51,343,995 euros. The temporary companies association that won the tender requested a price review of the contract dated February 1, 2005. While the port administration requested the return of the guarantees, “they rejected this because” On January 1, 2007, a serious failure occurred at Phase I of the Prat dock in the port of Barcelona.It consists of sixteen boxes coming out of place and the filling material they contain spilling out.
Rather than refund the deposit, the port’s general manager decided to “initiate a file to determine any liability that may arise for the malfunction” to determine whether there were grounds to charge anyone responsible, and did so proportionately. and the current caution in not agreeing to a refund of the deposit until the case is completed, a decision that has led to litigation by Ferrovial Agroman and Cyes.
outcome contract
The Supreme Court reminds that a contract of employment is “in principle like a contract of consequence and not a means by which the contractor undertakes to carry out the work for an agreed price”, as the Court’s jurisprudence assumes. Consider that the court decision The Barcelona Court “erred in dealing with the interpretation of the contract and assuming the alleged lack of clarity and internal consistency in its content.”It extends the effectiveness of the waiver of the right to compensation in case of damages arising from force majeure to the scope of the right to review prices. “With this confuses two different legal figures and it is clear that these techniques constitute a complete exception to the application of the principle of risk and chance in the construction contract,” he explains.
According to the high court, “there is no lack of clarity or contradiction or lacuna in the terms of the contract which requires going beyond the literal meaning of the contractual provisions for the purpose of ascertaining the alleged intentions of the parties which are not clear in the contract.” contract.”expression of the contract itself”. “ It is clearly erroneous to interpret and apply the contractual exclusion of the right to compensation in cases of force majeure to a clearly different situation, such as a price revision.Referring to a 2019 decision declaring that the companies diligently fulfilled their obligations under the construction contract and had no liability, the Civil Chamber concludes that the challenged decision was therefore subject to reported violations by the construction companies. January 2007 incident.