Intepretation of construction contract

The case concerned a recourse claim in a construction contract between a main contractor and a major subcontractor regarding the drilling of 34 energy wells. The question was whether the limitation‑of‑liability clauses in the subcontractor’s general terms and conditions for well drilling formed part of the contract through a reference in the company’s tender, which was one of the contract documents. As a starting point, the general terms did not apply to contracts of this magnitude.

The Supreme Court held that the reference in the tender only covered those parts of the general terms that concerned practical matters relating to the contract object itself. Among other things, weight was placed on the reference being placed under the tender’s section on such practical matters. The Court also noted that the liability limitations in the general terms contained significant deviations from clause 49.3 of NS 8417, which otherwise governed the contractual relationship. Previous contracting practice followed the same referencing technique, and the liability clauses in the general terms had not previously been invoked.

The main contractor’s recourse claim against the subcontractor succeeded, and the appeal was dismissed.

The judgment provides an example of an individual interpretation of a construction contract.

Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Area of law: Contract law 

Key paragraphs: 22–24

Justices: Falkanger, Arntzen, Sæther, Sivertsen, Vang