Abstract

This gloss refers to the Supreme Court judgment of 26 January 2024, II CSKP 1230/22. The commented judgment addresses the issue of correct distinction between additional and replacement works, as well as the possibility to pursue a claim including the amount of VAT in the absence of a prior VAT invoice. The author attempts to present the criteria formulated in the doctrine and judicature which distinguish between additional and replacement works, and compares them with the justification of the quoted judgment, and concludes that the Supreme Court deemed the criterion of the relation to the object of the contract to be decisive. At the same time, the author questions the correctness of the Supreme Court’s view as to the recognition of the qualification of replacement and additional works as an element of the legal assessment by the court, assuming that this is the sphere of factual findings. As regards failure to issue a VAT invoice, it has been pointed out that the Supreme Court’s view that this should not deprive the contractor of the possibility to pursue a claim including the amount of VAT is correct.