论文部分内容阅读
近年来,随着建筑工程商品混凝土用量的增加,混凝土纠纷的案件也越来越多。除了常见的混凝土质量和欠款纠纷较多之外,方量的纠纷也屡见不鲜。混凝土供应之后,供需双方对发生方量出现矛盾,往往供方数值大于需方数值的现象,习惯上被称为混凝土的“亏方”。而导致亏方纠纷一般都是按图纸结算约定不明,到了结算的时候,因为双方的方量差额太大而发生纠纷;或者是实际浇筑时不一定按合同约定部位浇筑而导致现场混凝土耗损;或者有些部位出现质量问题导致实际方量和图纸计算理论用量有出入;也或者实际施工过程中修改图纸等现象导致实际和理论方量差额,有时候商品混凝土生产企业的实际生产方量也总会给施工单位带来一种无法精确计量的担心,对其生产持怀疑态度却又很无奈,等事情发生造成纠纷时,即使到了法院,法官也不好处理,只有请专业部门鉴定,既浪费时间又浪费金钱,结果还不一定对混凝土企业有利。不论是按图纸计算还是按供货单计算,两种计算方法得出的结论应该是相差无几的,然而现实中有些工程会出现较大的偏差。应该从哪些方面去分析原因才更加客观公正呢?出现混凝土方量核算纠纷的责任该怎样来认定?通过采取什么措施来缩小实际发生方量和理论计算方量之间的差额而减少这些纠纷呢?本期特别策划针对这些问题请各位专家来讨论。
In recent years, with the increase of the amount of commercial concrete used in construction, there are more and more cases of concrete disputes. In addition to the common quality of concrete and arrears dispute more, the amount of disputes are not uncommon. Concrete supply, the supply and demand sides of the occurrence of a contradiction between the amount of square, often supply value greater than the value of the demand side of the phenomenon, customarily known as the concrete “deficit ”. The defaulting disputes are usually settled according to the drawing contract. At the time of settlement, the discrepancies between the two parties’ discrepancies are too large. Otherwise, the actual concrete pouring may not be caused according to the contract. There are quality problems in some parts of the actual amount of paper and drawing the theoretical amount of discrepancies; or the actual construction process changes in the drawings and other phenomena lead to the difference between the actual and the theoretical amount, and sometimes the actual volume of concrete production enterprises will always give The construction unit brings a worry that can not be measured accurately, it is skeptical about its production but very helpless. When disputes arise due to other things, the judge will not be able to deal with it even if it comes to the court. Wasteful money, the result is not necessarily beneficial to the concrete business. Whether calculated according to drawings or supply slips, the conclusions drawn by the two methods of calculation should be almost the same, but in reality some projects may experience large deviations. Which aspects should be analyzed to be more objective and fair? How to identify the responsibility of accounting for the concrete side amount? How to reduce these disputes by taking measures to reduce the difference between the actual side and the theoretical side? This issue of special planning for these issues please experts to discuss.