In some cases, a contract may not have been subject to a set completion period. In these cases, the law provides that construction will be completed within a normal and reasonable time, generally determined in relation to work completed in the same area and under similar construction conditions. Given that there is a high degree of uncertainty in these situations, it is not desirable or advantageous for one of the parties to exclude a fixed or identifiable closing period under the contract. When the parties negotiate contractual construction terms, they should pay attention to the definitions, as they correspond to the completion deadlines. Problems can arise if the terms remain undefined. In particular, the contract must clearly define what exactly includes hours of work or working days when a contract includes a time limit based on hours of work or days of work. These definitions should include days off, such as holidays and holidays. The use of the word “permit” indicated that “practical completion” did not require all of the work, but a little less, allowing for a final phase of completion in a timely manner. if commercial common sense is a very important factor to consider in the interpretation of a contract, a court should dismiss as fair the natural meaning of a provision only because it appears that it is very unwise for one of the parties to enter into an agreement; When defining contractual terms, it is important to consider the framework of construction and possible delays. The owner must have a realistic completion plan in order to accurately plan occupancy, financing and other considerations. While delays and other unforeseen problems may occur during the construction period, it is likely that owners will easily adjust to new completion dates as long as you keep them informed and have reasonable explanations for delays. At the University of Warwick v Balfour Beatty Group Ltd [2018], the German Court of Technology and Construction (EwHC) (TCC) had to determine whether the damages provisions liquidated in a construction contract between the applicant and the defendant were in working order. It depends on whether, within the proper design of the definition of “practical completion” in the context of the contract, all work must be completed before a single part can be certified as complete.

With respect to the Court`s interpretation, he held that the common sense of the terms used in the treaty did not render the provisions unusable. Under the contract with the company, which expires On June 30, the city must pay US$32 million to the company once the project is completed. The court found that the defendant`s interpretation of the contract did not correspond to the usual meaning of the words used.