【Case Background】

Mr. A recently purchased a second-hand house. Due to the old water pipes and electrical wiring in the house, Mr. A entrusted B Engineering Company to replace the entire room's water pipes (supply and drainage), electrical wiring, the bathroom, and conduct simple interior decoration (flat ceilings, repainting the entire room), etc., with a total agreed project cost of 700,000 TWD. After the completion of the work by B Engineering, Mr. A paid the full project fee as agreed, thinking everything went smoothly. However, about a month after completion, the water pipes hidden in the ceiling began to leak, and the bathroom also showed leakage, causing the flat ceiling to be damaged and peel off. Mr. A demanded B Engineering to be responsible for the repairs, yet B Engineering claimed that there were no issues during the construction and that these problems were not their responsibility. Mr. A was furious, as it was clear that the water pipe replacement work was defective, and B Engineering refused to make repairs, which was unacceptable. Mr. A was unsure of how to proceed.

【Our Practical Experience】

Article 493 of the Civil Code: "If the work is defective, the client may set a reasonable deadline for the contractor to make repairs. If the contractor does not make repairs within this deadline, the client may make the repairs themselves and request reimbursement from the contractor for the necessary expenses. If the cost of repairs is too significant, the contractor may refuse to make repairs, and the above provision shall not apply."
Key points from the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling No. 2298: "According to Article 493 of the Civil Code, 'If the work is defective, the client may set a reasonable deadline for the contractor to make repairs. If the contractor does not make repairs within this deadline, the client may make the repairs themselves and request reimbursement from the contractor for the necessary expenses. If the cost of repairs is too significant, the contractor may refuse to make repairs. This provision shall not apply.' The condition for the client to make repairs themselves is based on the contractor's failure to make repairs within the specified period or refusal to make repairs. Since the client is willing to enter into a contract and have the work done by the contractor, it implies that for the completion of work without defects, the contractor has a stronger ability to make repairs at a lower cost. If the client does not first set a deadline for the contractor to repair the defects, they cannot decide to hire others for repairs; this conclusion is inevitable not only for the economic purpose of the contract, which is to achieve the maximum benefit at the lowest cost for both parties but also from the principle of fairness to prevent unnecessary high expenses for the contractor."
Based on the above legal provisions and the Supreme Court's opinion, our lawyers first sent a certified letter from the lawyer to B Engineering, urging them to begin repairs for the leaking water pipes, bathroom leaks, and damaged flat ceiling within a week after receiving the letter. After a week passed without any repairs made by B Engineering, Mr. A sought out C Engineering to make the repairs, costing a total of 300,000 TWD. Based on the Civil Code provisions and the Supreme Court's opinion, our lawyers formally filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. A against B Engineering for the cost of hiring others to make the repairs, totaling 300,000 TWD, and successfully won the case, allowing Mr. A to successfully claim 300,000 TWD from B Engineering.