Disputes over defective work

Under Commercial Code No. 513/1991 Coll. (particularly § 548 and § 554), entitlement to the price is linked to performance of the work, generally its proper completion and handover — not merely issuing an invoice. That is why a price dispute often turns on whether the work was completed and delivered, and what the documentation shows. If the client obstructs acceptance, you must be able to prove it.

We first examine what the contract says about arranging handover, reservations and minor defects or incomplete items — and whether the reason for refusal is justified. The distinction between a defect preventing use and a cosmetic unfinished item is often decisive. We also ensure your invitation to accept the work, record of refusal and photographic evidence are produced promptly and verifiably.

Defects must be notified specifically, promptly and to the correct recipient — a general statement that you are dissatisfied is insufficient; the description must identify the precise complaint. The law requires the client to inspect the work or arrange an inspection as soon as possible after handover; if defects are not notified without undue delay after they were discovered or should have been discovered with professional care, the court will not award the defect claim if the contractor raises that objection, subject to the statutory exception where the contractor knew of the causes of the defect (§ 562 read with § 428(2) and (3) of the Commercial Code). The point at which time starts running is often crucial: in a dispute over defective agricultural work, the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica held that the duty to notify defects arose only after the entire subject of the work was delivered, and treated the sampling and professional assessment arranged after handover as arranging an inspection; the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic left that decision undisturbed when it rejected the contractor's appeal on points of law (5Obdo/5/2024, order of 25 March 2025). We therefore begin by checking what you notified, when and to whom — and whether this complies with the contract and law.

Not necessarily. § 428(2) and (3) of the Commercial Code apply by analogy to the effects of late notification (§ 562(3)). In simple terms, the contractor cannot rely on a late complaint where the defects arise from circumstances it knew or must have known about at handover. This was also central to the dispute mentioned above — the defects resulted from the contractor's incorrect technical procedure. Whether the exception applies to your situation depends on the evidence of what the contractor knew; it is nevertheless a reason not to give up as soon as late notification is raised.

If the contract requires a written change order for a scope change and none exists, the contractor's position is significantly weaker — entitlement to additional payment often turns on whether another agreement or legal basis can be proved. This does not apply automatically in every case, however: the contract's wording, the parties' actual conduct during performance, and what the diary and correspondence say about changes all matter. We assess these documents first.

Frankly, works disputes are among the longer and more expensive cases. In addition to the court fee and lawyer's fees, allow for an advance payment for an expert, usually essential on questions of quality and the price of work, and for proceedings that may last years. We therefore first assess the strength of the evidence and the recoverability of the claim against the other party, and tell you if we consider litigation not worthwhile. We confirm the price of each phase in advance; nobody can promise the outcome.