首页> 外文会议>ASME joint rail conference >CASES STUDY ON THE ACCEPTANCE DISPUTES OF TAIWAN MRT EM SYSTEMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RISK ALLOCATION
【24h】

CASES STUDY ON THE ACCEPTANCE DISPUTES OF TAIWAN MRT EM SYSTEMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RISK ALLOCATION

机译:风险分配视角下台湾地铁E&M系统验收纠纷研究

获取原文

摘要

Rail construction is an essential part of the Taiwan transportation projects. Since the mass rapid transit systems are powering by electricity, the successful installation of rail work built under the core electrical & mechanical system is also the key factor of the transit system integration. For cases discussed in this research, since the client needed to apply these contracts of civil laws after the completion yet before acceptance, two problems might be generated under such circumstances: 1) if there was any matter which could not be imputed on either party caused the failure of the contract, which party should be responsible for the resu 2) if there was any cease of operation or casualties and other damages during the verification of system stability and availability, which party should be responsible. The resolve of these problems was in fact a result of risk allocation through contracts. Due to that the risk allocation principals might vary due to the prediction and planning of different parties, based on the contractual freedom idea in Taiwan, if we wish to pursue the risk allocation, this reach point out the procedures it should be. From the case study of this research, it could be seen that one applicable idea of risk distribution, yet in the verification of individual cases, there would be concerns for different ideas due to specific abstract risk allocation ideas. There might be further research into the detailed standards for risk allocation to resolve the potential doubt.
机译:铁路建设是台湾运输项目的重要组成部分。由于质量快速过境系统通过电力供电,因此在核心电气和机械系统下建造的铁路工作的成功安装也是过境系统集成的关键因素。对于本研究讨论的案件,由于客户在完成前仍需要在完成后申请这些民法合同,因此在这种情况下可能会产生两个问题:1)如果有任何缔约方无法归咎于任何缔约方合同失败,哪一方应对结果负责; 2)如果在核实系统稳定和可用性期间有任何不断的运营或伤亡和其他损害,那么哪一方应负责。这些问题的解决实际上是通过合同的风险分配的结果。由于风险分配校长可能因不同方面的预测和规划而有所不同,基于台湾的合同自由理念,如果我们希望追求风险分配,这一覆盖范围指出所需的程序。从本研究的案例研究中,可以看出,由于特定的抽象风险分配思想,一个适用风险分布的一个适用的风险分布概念,但在核查中,会有不同的思路。可能进一步研究风险分配的详细标准,以解决潜在的疑问。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号