| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中央大學 === 營建管理研究所 === 92 === In public works, settling disputes by arbitration is becoming rarer, least to mention about reconciliation or mediation. Even when mediation or reconciliation are dealt with, litigation may sometimes inevitable. In the latest trend in Taiwan, the clauses of arbitration are overall excluded or is set followed by a preempt procedure. This further complicates much how disputes are resolved, yet killing off all other means of dispute resolution mechanism.
From the standpoint of government authority overseeing the construction industry, this very development can only work against to improving the efficiency and to helping the industry as a whole to grow. In particular, litigation can squarely prolong the process of seeking justice, necessarily hurt the contractor’s, in most cases the plaintiff, liquidity. The fundamental conviction of this work is that things need not be so controversial. There exist areas where both parties are beneficiary when disputes are resolved by arbitration or other more efficient means of resolution. This work attempts to categorize public work disputes, so that those which qualify for arbitration or which adamantly unsuitable for litigation can be revealed. The findings of this work can be employed to ratify dispute resolution clauses in public work contracts.
|
|---|
