But with this result, she argues, the state will have no difficulty in coming to terms with it. The reason for this is that some delay in presenting the contractor's demand does not entail great damage; And sometimes it will even be a matter for the state to delay the contractor in presenting his demand. This is not the case with regard to the contractor's delay in completing the construction on the agreed date. Such a delay is liable to cause great damage, and therefore one should not accept an interpretation that takes from the state a means of supervising the contractor's compliance with the binding schedule.
Interpretation of Section 6(h)(3) as it is
- On the question of the interpretation of section 6(h)(3), my opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the learned judge in the District Court. I am also of the opinion that the language of the section is simple and clear. It emerges from the section as written, and from the substantive context within which it is found, that its provision applies to a case in which the demand for the realization of its undertaking to purchase apartments, in projects of the second type, is presented to the State by the contractor after the end of the execution period.
- Section 6(h)(3), as it is written, relates to a case "of the realization of a purchase undertaking.. after the end of the execution period." There was no dispute between the parties (and this is also required by the definition of this concept in the program contract), that "end of the performance period" means the date on which, according to the agreement between him and the State in the specific contract, the contractor is obligated to complete the construction of the building. The words that need to be interpreted are "fulfillment of a purchase obligation." In my opinion, there is no room for doubt that this expression represents the contractor's demand presented to the state to fulfill its obligation and purchase the apartments from him (and not, for example, the purchase act itself).
This is clearly required by the context in which this expression is used in the first two sub-sections of section 6(h): subsection (1) – which applies to projects of both types of apartments – limits the contractor's right to pay interest only "until the end of the execution period"; while subsection (2), which applies only to projects of apartments of the first type, orders a reduction in the calculated price by a rate equal to 2% for each month following the end of the eighteen months during which the contractor was required to present his demand. Both provisions apply to cases in which the contractor's demand for the fulfillment of the purchase obligation is presented by him at a later date: in the first case (regulated in subsection (1)), the demand is presented "after the end of the performance period". The provision is that in such a case, the contractor will not be credited with the payment of interest until the end of the execution period; The same applies to projects for the construction of apartments of the first type, for which the contractor may suspend his demand for the realization of the undertaking for eighteen months from the end of the execution, without derogating his right to receive the full calculated price (including linkage differences). In the second case (regulated in subsection (2)) this is a case in which the contractor's demand for the realization of the purchase undertaking is submitted by him to the State after eighteen months have elapsed from the end of the execution period. The section provides that in such a case, the calculated price will be reduced by 2% for each month after the end of the eighteen-month period.