Public contracts

A company was carrying out some public works (the construction of a high-speed line) with an initial deadline that, over time, was extended through several extensions. The important thing is that those delays were not the contractor's fault . The conflict arises when, later on, the company tries to claim compensation for the damages and additional costs that it claims to have suffered due to those deadline extensions.

In the first two extensions, the company accepted the extension of the deadline without further comment, did not record any "reservation" or that it intended to claim money for damages. However, in later extensions, it did make a express reservation , that is, accepting the extension, but making it clear that the right to claim compensation was reserved . The case went to court. First, the court considered that the

first two extensions first two extensions compensation for some compensation for some the causal link had not been accredited well the extensions without reservation and later making reservations in subsequent extensions prevents

claiming for the initial ones . The SC rejects "automatisms ", not every extension results in compensation, nor does every acceptance without reservations block any future claim. It is necessary to consider the claim for the first . The SC rejects the " automatisms ", nor does every extension generate compensation, nor does every unconditional acceptance block any future claim. You have to look at the specific case and the conduct of the parties in each extension of the deadline. Applying this, dismisses the appeal and considers it correct to deny the compensation for the first two extensions , not because the lack of reservation is automatically a waiver, but because, considering the actions as a whole, a specific agreement is observed in those initial extensions (accepted expressly, without reservation and without a budget increase), unlike the subsequent ones, where the right to claim was reserved.

In addition, the Supreme Court emphasizes that the underlying problem of the claim was not so much the calculation method, but the failure to properly prove the causal link , which prevented attributing those cost overruns precisely to that specific work.

If you have suffered a financial loss for which the Administration may be held responsible, our professionals can demand the corresponding liabilities for the compensation of the damage caused