Ar išlieka būsto kokybės garantija bankrutavus rangovui?
Jonaitis, Aistis |
2008 m. prasidėjus pasaulinei finansų krizei, Lietuvoje kaip ir kitose pasaulio valstybėse „sprogo nekilnojamo turo burbulas“, todėl daugybė statybinių įmonių bankrutavo. Kai kurie naujos statybos būstus nusipirkę gyventojai mažiau nei po poros metų pastebėjo nekokybiškai atliktus statybos darbus. Asmenys, kurie kreipiasi į būstą pardavusią įmonę (užsakovą) dažnai išgirsta, kad rangovas yra bankrutavęs, todėl nėra kam ištaisyti atsiradusius statinio defektus. Patys užsakovai, remdamiesi LR Civilinio kodekso 6.697 str. ir LR Statybos įstatymo 36 str. tvirtina, kad užsakovui teisinis reguliavimas nenumato pareigos užtikrinti, kad statybos objektas atitiktų normatyvinių statybos dokumentų rodiklius per visą garantinį laikotarpį. Nors LR Civilinis kodeksas ir Statybos įstatymas numato pakankamai ilgus (5, 10, 20 metų) statybos darbų kokybės garantinius terminus, tačiau bankrutavus rangovui pasidaro visiškai neaišku ar garantija išlieka, iš kieno ir kokia tvarka, pirkėjas turėtų reikalauti, kad būtų ištaisyti statybos darbų defektai. Todėl, siekiant atsakyti į tezėje pateiktą klausimą, darbe nagrinėjami rangos, bankroto bei pirkimo-pardavimo teisniai santykiai. Šiame darbe keliamas tikslas yra nustatyti ar išlieka naujos statybos būsto įstatyminė kokybės garantija, jei nemokiam rangovui pradėta bankroto byla arba jis jau yra likviduotas. Darbe tiriamas tik toks atvejis, kai būsto galutinis savininkas (pirkėjas) yra fizinis asmuo, perkantis jį savo asmeniniams poreikiams iš nekilnojamojo turto vystytojo. Nekilnojamojo turto vystytoju yra laikomas užsakovas, kuris buvo sudaręs statybų rangos sutartį su, defektų atsiradimo metu jau bankrutuojančiu (likviduotu), rangovu. Atlikus tyrimą padaryta išvada, kad darbe keliama hipotezė pasitvirtino, užsakovas kartu būdamas ir naujos statybos būsto pardavėju, privalo atsakyti už statinio defektus per visą įstatymo nustatytą garantinį laikotarpį nepaisant to, kad rangovui yra pradėta bankroto byla arba jis yra likviduotas. Užsakovo atsakomybė atsiranda iš pirkimo-pardavimo teisinių santykių, kadangi pagal bendruosius pirkimo-pardavimo teisinių santykių principus, pardavėjas perduodamas daiktą pirkėjui, privalo garantuoti jo kokybę. Šių bendrųjų principų pritaikomumą užsakovo (pardavėjo) ir būsto pirkėjo sutartiniams teisiniams santykiams patvirtina darbe atliktas tyrimas, kurio išvados paremtos Lietuvos teisės šaltiniais bei užsienio šalių patirtimi.
Poor quality of construction works becomes an issue only after a building has been fully exploited. In this context, the legislator of Republic of Lithuania, requires from contractor to give a warranty of residential building quality and to remove defects, which are not due to the fault of third parties and a natural wear, thus ensuring building’s functional fitness. Civil Code of Republic of Lithuania establishes very long warranty terms for the building quality, they can last for 5, 10 or even 20 years. During such long period of time, in the state and all around the world a lots of economic, political, legal and business decisions are made. All these changes can significantly influence legal personality and even make him bankrupt. In Lithuania, after the explosion of a real estate bubble and after the end of an intensive construction work of residential buildings, large number of construction companies went into bankruptcy. For this reason, homeowners in Lithuania faced with a serious legal problem - whether warranty of residential building quality persists? If it persists - who has an obligation to eliminate defects or cover their costs? Real estate developers who sold buildings to homeowners try to avoid responsibility and have a strong defensive position. They argue that legislation in Lithuania does not require the developer to remove construction defects during the warranty period, this obligation is stated for the general contractor and because of that, homeowners with their claims should participate in the bankruptcy procedures. The aim of this research is to determine whether warranty of residential building quality persists, if the contractor is already eliminated or goes through the bankruptcy proceedings. The paper studies only the case where the final homeowner is a natural person who buys a building from the real estate developer for his personal needs. In this paper building is considered as new construction condominium or private house, which are purchased from a real estate developer and homeowner is not in contractual relationships with the contractor. Relevance of this topic stems from the fact that only few years ago, after real estate bubble exploded, homeowner faced with the poor quality of construction works. Economists and real estate experts, in Lithuania in near future predict the real estate market recovery, which will probably increase a demand for new buildings and will start new stage of construction works. For this reason future homeowners also can face with the same legal problem if legislator and lawyers will not find the solution to this problem. This topic is novel, because the legal problem itself is new in Lithuania. This legal problem has emerged recently, because of that it has been not analyzed in any scientific work yet. For this day, in Lithuania there are only few analysis of legal relationships in construction matters and those only include cases where all parties are functioning in normal order. Since the problem is a new, unified case law on this particular issue as well has not been developed yet. The research is focused on the legal issue which exists in Lithuania, for this reason this paper is mostly based on Lithuanian law sources. However, in order to provide the best answer to the problem, research is also based on a foreign countries (U.S. and Canadian) legal experience. Because the work is not a comparative analysis, only the prominent aspects of the research will be touched in the context of foreign law sources. Research is made using these methods: descriptive, historical, comparative, systematic, linguistic and analytical. The first chapter of this research explains general concept of the construction law of Lithuania, it also gives the answer to the question what kind of legal nature has building warranty and which subjects are responsible for it. This part also analyzes the terms of warranty and answers the question in what scope the residential building are covered by the warranty, what actions can eliminate it. The second chapter starts with the general understanding of the bankruptcy proceedings. The main aim of this part is to provide the answer to the question whether homeowner may participate in the general contractor’s bankruptcy proceedings. Also, in this chapter types of insurance policies for construction companies are analyzed in order to understand their applicability in solving this legal issue. The third chapter examines the developer’s responsibility during the warranty period in details. This part reveals what impact has the contractor's bankruptcy to the developer’s liability, whether the same warranty terms can be applicable for him. Finally, this part answers the question whether warranty of the residential building quality can be also extended to the subsequent homeowner. Hypothesis in this paper is confirmed, the developer as a vendor is liable for building defects for the whole period of warranty and the fact that the general contractor went into bankruptcy has no meaning in this case. Developer's liability arises from the general principles of contract law of Lithuania. Under these principles, person who sells something, also must ensure its quality. Vendor's responsibility can be removed based on buyer’s knowledge of defects prior the contract, misuse of building and third-party’s fault. However, according to Lithuanian case law, general contractor is not considered as a third-party in construction relationship. For this reason his bankruptcy does not affect developer’s liability in front of the homeowner even building defects was directly caused by the contractor’s fault. Finally, according to the U.S. model, in the research was found that the developer’s liability to subsequent homeowner occurs only in those states where the privity of contract doctrine was restricted by the courts. Meanwhile, contract law in Lithuania is based on relative privity of contract doctrine, under which not contractual party has no claim, unless statutory exception allows it. In Lithuania there is no such exceptions in the building quality matters, unfortunately for this reason it must be concluded that the subsequent homeowner has no warranty of the building quality.