Abstract

The article presents a critique against the Supreme Court’s position on divisibility of a contractor’s performance under a construction work contract. The author argues for an indivisible nature of this performance as a rule, but points out the need to examine the intentions of the contracting parties. In this context, the author considers the issue of withdrawal form a construction contract, assuming that, as a rule, it has ex tunc effects and presenting his de lege ferenda comments in this respect. In addition, the author criticises the view that the contractor’s responsibility for the delay should be examined in cases of withdrawal under Art. 635 of the Civil Code, but endorses the thesis that the contractor’s delay for reasons for which the investor is responsible does not justify withdrawal from the contract under that provision.