Rectification work did not disrupt the limitation period for claims in a construction case

A contractor tried for a long time in vain to rectify a fault in an apartment building. The home buyers filed a claim for damages against the developer. The latter brought a recourse action against the contractor, and was awarded in the District Court and the Court of Appeal the same amount of damages that the company itself was ordered to pay to the buyers. The contractor had undertaken to investigate and rectify the fault that had been claimed. The Supreme Court's majority of three justices found, as opposed to the District Court and the Court of Appeal, that this could not be considered acknowledgment of liability disrupting the limitation period, see section 14 of the Limitation Act, as such liability had not been positively and fairly clearly acknowledged. Since the developer made submissions that the claim was not limited, which had not been considered by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal's judgment was set aside. The minority of two judges agreed with the result, but found that the Supreme Court did not have a sufficient basis to carry out the individual assessment.

Read the judgment (Norwegian only)

Area of law: Contract law. Construction. Limitation. Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 

Key paragraphs: 41–42, 52–53, 58–59, 60, 70–73

Justices: Webster, Arntzen, Falch, Østensen Berglund, Høgetveit Berg