Abstract

The institution of lump-sum remuneration plays an important role in business transactions. Contracts encompassing lump-sum remuneration are widely used in the construction services market, also in larger contracts of greater complexity. The commented judgement raises controversies of a dogmatic nature since the explanation of certain issues given by the Supreme Court appears to be based largely on – somewhat justified – protection of the interests of the party accepting the order (contractor). The purpose of the gloss is to clarify these doubts as well as formulate some general comments with respect to the analysed issues.