契約約文的解釋及適用長期以來支配著工程履約爭議處理模式的現象，並未能真正建立契約兩造間共同信賴的標準，反而因為其不可預測性而變相鼓助長了爭議的發生。本文之作即是嚐試從訂約時即應考慮的風險管理為出發點，建立風險承擔與成本的關聯性，進而從既存爭議的契約價格結構反推締約時的風險分配應然的結論，以解決工程履約爭議。在論理上除了尋找如此解決爭議的適法性基礎外，並以案例分析方式得到實踐上的支持，嗣再透過問卷調查及專家學者深度訪談等研究方法，進一步驗證研究成果的正確及可行。 本研究之成果，在短期內可提供具體已發生之個案在爭議處理時可能遵循的解決方式。透過案例數量的逐步累積後，彰顯合理的契約義務分配及價格結構關聯性，一方面提昇工程履約爭議解決的合理性，另一方面也建立較客觀的爭議處理標準，使得工程爭議的解決相對客觀而具有可預測性，期望在中、長期達成一定程度息爭止訟的成效。 ;Based on the risk allocation concept, the study objective is to identify which party needs to bear the liability under the following two circumstances: (1) force majeure clause and (2) personnel injury/death and other collateral damage. The methodology lies in a comprehensive literature review, comparability among past verdicts, and empirical cases. The findings involve four aspects: in Type I, risk-bearing is considered as a factor for cost decision and risk allocation may be decided by contractual provisions; in Type II, the parties to whom the risk is allocated may be reimbursed from the third party and therefore cannot make any claim against the other party; in Type III, the contractor should assume the risk according to the contract regardless of contractual provisions on the assumption of risk as a result of the contractor’s negligence; in Type IV, the allocated liability simply comes from the mere perspective of (1) the benefit allocation resulted from risk avoidance, (2) dominate position of risk control, (3) general development of the whole industry and maximization of the overall economic benefit. The comprehensive literature review brings out comparability among past verdicts and targeted investigation and then yields suggestions for conducting the expert survey based on the questionnaire, resulting in 8 stems with 5-scale Likert measurement to develop the proposed concept. There are 50 effective returns that establish 4 types of resolutions for disputes caused by construction projects in Taiwan. The findings demonstrate the guideline for practitioners to deal with possible disputes caused by construction projects.
