調停実績報告書による建築紛争に至る仕組みに関する研究

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • A STUDY ON THE MECHANISM OF ARCHITECTURAL-DISPUTE WITH CONCILIATION REPORT
  • チョウテイ ジッセキ ホウコクショ ニ ヨル ケンチク フンソウ ニ イタル シクミ ニ カンスル ケンキュウ

この論文をさがす

抄録

<p> As a hypothesis, the complexity of the background of Architectural-disputes come from the unclearness and vagueness of the liability within the building production process. Exploring the mechanism of this unclearness and vagueness may help solving one of the issues for expediting litigation. By observing the conversation during the conciliation will somehow prove the honest source and the rout misunderstanding of the vagueness in each professional role in the architectural process which has led the parties to the dispute. The study focuses on civil conciliations and clarifies the mechanism of how the vagueness occurs and explode into the complexity within the disputes. The analytic material for this study is CONCILIATION REPORTS which are reported by the civil conciliation commissioners who have attended the conciliations and heard the discussions directly.</p><p> At first, to avoid the complexity caused by term difference defined by different laws, we reorganized the terms for Party, Legal liability and Dispute matter. Party is classified into Client(A), Building engineer(B), and Third party(C). Legal liability is classified into Liability related to the contract(x) and defect(y). Dispute matter is classified into Contract(a), Design(b), Construction(c), and Building use(d). Basic factor which is related to Legal liability, is classified into Procedural factor(p), Substantive factor(q), and Complex factor(pq) which is combination of these two factors. Trigger factor which doesn't get connected with Legal liability, is classified into Switching party(ⅰ) and Switching evidence(ⅱ). When distrust or expectation that indicate the underlying emotion, they are marked with an asterisk.</p><p> By the relationship between them, we have been able to reorganize one case as multiple units that indicate the causes of the dispute and the dispute parties.</p><p> Comparing the Liability pursuit structures for each Party, the relationship between (a), (p) and (x), and (c), (pq) and (y) was found to be the central structure of Architectural-dispute. (b) relates with Basic factor without any hierarchy. (ⅱ) was somehow related to the central structure of Architectural-dispute, and (ⅰ) and (ⅱ*) was diversified by the Liability pursuit structures.</p><p> By analyzing the direction of pursuing the Legal liability we have found a tendency for contents to pursue the Legal liability among the parties. Based on this, we have been able to categorize six Liability pursuit types from the directions pursuing Legal liabilities between the parties. Claim from client type2 which diversifies the pursuit direction in Liability pursuit types, has made the dispute parties a diverse.</p><p> Next, we have focused on the Liability pursuit structures in Claim from third party type and Claim from client type2 that have complicated the process to Architectural-dispute. In Claim from third party type, we have found the feature that the defects in building use have been the Liability pursuit structures different from the defects in building construction. In Claim from client type2, we have found the feature that Construction defects has also related to Design(b), and (ⅱ) has had a relationship with the central structure of Architectural-dispute and (b).</p><p> Herewith, we have made it clear that the vagueness of the extent of liability with Architectural-dispute is the difference between Dispute matter and Legal liability originally resulting, (ⅰ) and (ⅱ*) complicate the Architectural-dispute, (ⅱ) applies to the central structure of Architectural-dispute and (b), that is, there is the mechanism that leads to Architectural-dispute because of the inadequacy of the Architectural design document.</p>

収録刊行物

参考文献 (1)*注記

もっと見る

詳細情報

問題の指摘

ページトップへ