The cost of a construction subcontractor has unjustly enriched the investor and general contractor by not paying wages, the Supreme Court has ruled.
And he stressed that legal protection for subcontractors requires acts of diligence in the form of written contracts, not implied statements.
Supreme Court overturns second-instance court verdict The Supreme Court said some of the allegations in the complaint are valid.
He overturned the second-instance court's ruling and remanded the case for reconsideration. - Legal protection of subcontractors requires acts of diligence, but it also gives protection to the investor against collusion between the general contractor and the subcontractor. In this case, more due diligence should have been done, the contract should have been in writing, she added. Many blind The subcontractor must be aware of who the investor is and who is acting on his behalf. In addition, there must be consent from the investor to carry out construction work with the subcontractor, the Supreme Court stressed. The case did not establish the work to be performed by the plaintiff. Judge Ustjanicz noted that the courts revolved around conjecture, and it is not even known whether the defendant's father was an attorney authorized to sign contracts with the contractor. In this case, the joint and several liability provision of Article 647 (1) of the Civil Code cannot be applied, but the provisions on unjust enrichment. The subcontractor should turn to the general contractor for payment of wages.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of August 31, 2018, file reference I CSK 548/17
