Breach of Builder Regulations has no private-law implications

In a major contract with the Norwegian Public Roads Administration as the builder, the construction firm had exceeded several interim time limits subject to daily fines. The Supreme Court's majority of four justices found, like the lower instances, that the provision in section 5 of the Builder Regulations on the obligation to allow for sufficient building time, did not have a private-law effect in the relationship between the two parties. Norske Lov [Norwegian law] 5-1-2 and legal literature on invalidity under private-law agreements with unlawful content did not support such an interpretation. The same applied to the principle of effectiveness derived from Article 3 of the EEA Agreement, section 36 of the Contracts Act and invoked provisions in the contract. Consequently, there was no basis for setting aside or prolonging the interim time limits subject to daily fines. One justice dissented and found that the time limits in the contract must be set aside – in practice prolonged – as far as they did not meet the requirement in the Builder Regulations. Dissenting opinions 4-1.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Areas of law: Construction law. Contract revision. The principle of effectiveness in the EEA. Builder Regulations. NS 8406. NL 5–1–2. Section 36 of the Contract Act.

Key paragraphs: 48-49, 67, 70

Justices: Skoghøy, Bull, Arntzen, Falch, Berg