Abstract

In legal relations under construction works contracts, an important issue for ensuring equality of the parties is moderation of contractual penalty. In light of the current economic turmoil - related to access to certain materials, inflation, numerous legal changes - it becomes particularly important in the context of the correct enforcement of appropriate remuneration by the Contractor for the works performed. It is therefore worth examining whether the request for moderation of a contractual penalty should be characterized by specific formal requirements indicated in the wording of the commented judgment, despite the fact that these elements do not result from a literal, functional or teleological interpretation of the norm contained in Art. 484 § 2 of the Civil Code. What consequences can occur in the event of such formal deficiencies, which were indicated by the Supreme Court in this judgment? Does this position reflect jurisprudential tendencies and views of the doctrine in a sufficient way to request the party to provide appropriate clarifications if they are found? The author of this commentary attempts to answer these questions.