Contracts for establishing the right to build against an obligation to build a building and indemnify the owners of the land with part of the built are extremely common in modern practice. Equally common are the problems that arise when the superintendent-builder, or subsequently the superintendent owner, fails to perform, when construction stops at a certain stage before the building is completed, most often for financial reasons.
The annulment of such contracts, which as a rule are drawn up as notarial deeds, insofar as they establish real rights, takes place by court order, according to Art. 87 of the ZZD, as well as the applicable special rules for production contracts.
It is essential to ascertain whether the particular contract establishing a right to build against an obligation to construct a building and indemnify the owners of the land with part of the construction is one for continuous or periodic performance or not, so far as the consequences of the destruction are concerned, under Art. 88, para. 1 of the ZZD, which states that cancellation has a retroactive effect, except for contracts for continuous or periodic performance.
But from the definition of the contract as one for periodic or continuous performance, or for a one-time action, it also has meaning for the penalties. Agreed Interpretative decision No. 7 of 13.11.2014 of the Supreme Court of Appeal under No. 7/2013, OSGTC no penalty is due for delay under Art. 92, para. 1 of the Civil Code, when a bilateral contract, which is not for long-term or periodic performance, is canceled due to the debtor's culpable failure to perform. In such a scenario, only liquidated damages are payable for non-performance due to cancellation - liquidated damages, if such has been agreed.
Breach of contract
Of interest is the question of when there is actually non-performance, which is not insignificant, in view of the interests of the creditors - founders of the right to build, according to Art. 87, para. 4 of the ZZD, in order to allow cancellation of the contract. Default can be present in two forms: urgent - regarding the agreed time for construction of the building - and quantitatively - regarding the degree of completion of the building, as qualitative non-performance will not be considered.
E.g. in Decision No. 201 of 13.07.2011 of the Administrative Court - Yambol according to the City of Yambol Decree No. 278/2011. it is assumed that the completion of a building of 63% to rough construction is such non-performance, which is sufficient to cancel the contract for the establishment of a right of construction. IN Decision No. 257 of 07.4.2012 of the OS - Smolyan pursuant to City Decree No. 159/2011. it is accepted that the completion of a building by 57% is a sufficient default to void the contract. Suspension of construction for more than 7 years and implementation of construction up to rough construction - 30% performance is a reason to cancel the contract - Decision No. 1686 of the SAC pursuant to Administrative Law No. 1613/2016
Regarding delay in time, the courts often accept that it will always be sufficient if the due date has occurred to void a contract to establish a right to build – e.g. in Decision No. 643 of 30.01.2013 of the SGS under City Decree No. 13246/2011. it is accepted that delay of over 1 year leads to the right to rescind the contract without substantially examining the quantum of non-performance. IN Decision of 01/05/2012 of the OS - Blagoevgrad according to city ordinance No. 237/2012. it is even accepted that if it is clear that the deadline will not be met and if the company is experiencing financial difficulties, evident from imposed liens, there is justification for the claim to cancel the contract - the special reason for cancellation under Art. 262, para. 2 of the ZZD.
However, when there is delay of about 6 months, but the building was completed on 90%, cancellation of the contract of establishment for the right to build is not allowed, since the non-fulfillment is not essential - Decision No. 5166 of 12.07.2012 of the SGS under City Decree No. 4005/2009.
IN Decision No. 15 of 02/05/2014 of the Administrative Court - Dobrich pursuant to No. 30/2013. it is accepted that even failure to meet the deadline by 6 months is a sufficient reason for canceling the contract, as the suspension of construction with Act form 10 cannot stop the deadlines for completion. Even external obstacles to construction – such as sewer connection problems – cannot justify a complete stoppage of construction with Act Form 10 – Decision No. 5166 of 12.07.2012 of the SGS under City Decree No. 4005/2009.
General distinction between periodic and continuous contracts
According to the accepted in Decision No. 65 of 8.XII.1981 under City Decree No. 30/81, OSGK for continuous performance is that contract in which continuously during a certain time the debtor must perform or not perform essentially the same performance actions. For periodic performance is that contract in which the debtor must, during a certain time, perform several identical performances repeated over a specified or indefinite period of time /Decision No. 749 of 15.12.2010 of the Supreme Court of Appeals under City Decree No. 840/2009, IV year o., GK/.
The performances are independent, but they are united by the same legal fact. Despite their common source, however, each of the long-term or intermittent performances constitutes something independent of itself. At the lease agreement[1] (for continued performance) the lessor provides the lessee with the use of an object for a certain period against payment of a rental price. In the contract for periodic delivery[2] (for periodic execution) the debtor delivers a certain amount of semi-finished products to the buyer daily, monthly, annually, etc., and the latter, after each delivery, pays for the goods delivered to him. When a contract for continuous or periodic performance is terminated, the termination does not have retroactive effect. Payment has been made for the rental of the item for a certain period of time. A payment has been made for each delivery of goods. When the contract is broken, the parties to it have nothing to get back.
Before considering the contract for the establishment of a right to build, combined with an obligation to construct a building, attention should be paid to another similar[3] contract - for maintenance and maintenance. It has long been accepted in jurisprudence that the contract for the transfer of property in exchange for maintenance and maintenance not for continuous or periodic performance in the sense of art. 88, para. 1 33D. It is assumed that the cancellation of such a contract has a retroactive effect. This is so because in this contract, one party gave his property, and the other gave maintenance and maintenance, but he owes maintenance and maintenance for the future as well. When the maintenance contract was broken, she did not pretend what she would give in the future. She has, so to speak, an undone performance. If the return of what was given is not decreed, she would be unjustly enriched, since she did not give what was due in return for the property she received. In that sense they are Decision No. 2482 of 24.X.1974 under city decree No. 1852/74, I year o. SC, Interpretative decision No. 122 of 1.12.1986, OSGK, Decision No. 749 of 15.12.2010 of the Supreme Court of Appeals under City Decree No. 840/2009, IV year o., GK and many others.
The logic behind the accepted is that in the maintenance and care contract, the transferor commits one-time pretense – transfers the real estate, while only the other party makes periodic and continuous performances – maintenance and viewing. In order for the entire contract to qualify as periodic and continuous performance, both parties must owe and perform mutually periodic and continuous performances. It is necessary that the obligation under the contract of both parties is continuous or periodic. In the case of one-time pressing on one side and periodic pressing on the other, the spoilage has the opposite effect – Decision No. 2 of 6.I.1964 under city decree No. 2202/63, I year o. VS, Decision No. 146 of 12.11.2020 of the Supreme Court of Appeal under City Decree No. 1125/2020, III year o., GK.
In the same sense, the contract for the provision of a certain type of service can be designated as continuous or periodic only if the contractor has undertaken to perform the same type of activity throughout the contract period, for example Security Activity[4] – Decision No. 221/22.02.2012 pursuant to No. 1161/2010 of the Second Technical Review of the Supreme Court. But when the contractor has undertaken an obligation to perform different in nature activities in the different stages, and not an obligation to continuously perform the same activity for the entire term of the contract, divided into stages, the contract is not for periodic or continuous performance. The agreement of deferred payment and of a schedule for carrying out the work is not in itself sufficient to assume that the contract is of continuous or periodic performance – Decision No. 147 of 31.10.2019 of the Supreme Court of Appeal No. 50178/2016, Item I, GK.
Contract for consulting services[5] – assessment of investment projects for compliance, exercise of construction supervision and coordination of the construction process is also not a contract for long-term or periodic performance, since the consulting services include steps of different types of actions, but the due result is one-time - the target result is that the specific object /construction/ is put into operation. And this is so, because its performance does not consist in performing it in a certain longer period of time - continuously /as in the case of the lease agreement / or periodically, but that the preparation for the performance - the making, continues for a certain period. The clauses for the payment of the various parts of the remuneration /advance and upon acceptance of the work/ are also irrelevant to the characterization of the process contract for consulting services, not only as one for long-term, but also as one for periodic performance - Decision No. 4726 of 20.06.2013 of the SGS under City Law No. 15072/2012.
The contract for the establishment of the right of construction and construction
Therefore, the relevant question is whether the contracts for the establishment of the right to build against the obligation to construct a building and to compensate the owners of the land with a part of the construction can be qualified as those for bilateral or unilateral periodic or continuous performance, or are those with a one-time performance.
On the matter of the nature of the construction contract have essentially similar opinions. It is assumed that the construction contract is undeniably of continuous performance[6] and spoiling it has no reverse effect[7], but on the other hand, that this rule has some peculiarities – that it should not be absolutized, and it can be assumed that in the case of spoilage the opposite effect is present[8].
The construction process is a set of activities carried out in a certain sequence, phases and stages over a long period of time, with the participation of various persons, some of whom must have special professional training. According to Art. 160, para. 1 ZUT participants in the construction process are the contracting authority, the builder, the designer, the consultant, the individual exercising technical control for the "Constructive" part, the technical manager and the supplier of machines, facilities and technological equipment. The contracting authority is the owner of the property, the person who has been granted the right to build on someone else's property, and the person who has the right to build on someone else's property by virtue of the law (Art. 161, Para. 1 ZUT). The client or a person authorized by him provides everything necessary for the start of construction. Pursuant to Art. 163, para. 1 ZUT the builder is a natural or legal person, including in its composition natural persons possessing the necessary technical legal capacity, who, under a written contract with the contracting authority, carries out the construction in accordance with the issued building documents. The provision of Art. 163, para. 4 ZUT provides an opportunity for the builder to assign to a subcontractor the performance of individual types of construction and assembly works or parts/stages/ of the construction. According to the additional provision of § 1, para. 1, item 3 of Ordinance No. 3/31.07.2003 on drawing up acts and protocols during construction, "installation contractor" is a legal or natural person with the relevant license required according to the current regulations / when such requires/ with which the contracting authority or the builder has concluded a contract for the execution of installation works. Pursuant to the additional provision of § 1, para. 1, item 4 of Ordinance No. 3/31.07.2003 "supplier of machinery and equipment" is any merchant within the meaning of the Commercial Law - legal or natural person with whom the contracting authority has concluded a contract for the supply of machinery and equipment for the site . Investing in the construction process for the construction of a building is related to the investment of funds for the acquisition of real estate or the establishment of a building right on real estate on which it will be built, for the acquisition of materials that are used in construction, equipment that is install, internal installations, construction mechanization, equipment, labor, warehouses and others. Usually, the investor of the construction is the client, and in the case of a transferred ideal part of the land property or an established right to build on individual objects of the builder, the investor can also be the builder - Decision No. 128 of 24.10.2019 of the Supreme Court of Appeal No. 2463/2018, Item II, TC. In addition, in practice it has become necessary that the builder, as an investor, is the person who assigns the preliminary construction design activities, and not the owners-contractors. The above is not intended to describe all possible legal relationships and obligations of a contractor under a construction contract, but only to outline the variety of contracts, activities and legal and factual actions that are too often behind the words "construction" and "construction and installation works".
In this line of thought, two circumstances should be taken into account - whether it is present actual continued performance of one or both parties, as well as lastly – whether the builder-supervisor independently performs the system of actions necessary for the construction.
Unilateral continuing contract
First of all, it must be accepted without question that that if the owners of the land - founders of the right to build have the sole and one-time obligation to transfer the right to build to the superintendent-builder, and he has the obligation to build the building, then the contract should not be qualified as such for long-term or periodic performance according to Art. 88, para. 1 of the ZZD. The same will be the case with an ordinary construction contract, without the establishment of a construction right, when the client has the sole obligation to accept the work and pay the price – the consideration is one (one-off). As stated, longstanding and uncontroversial jurisprudence holds that in order for the entire contract to qualify as periodic and continuous performance, both parties must mutually owe and perform periodic or continuous performance. It is necessary that the obligation under the contract of both parties is continuous or periodic. With one-time pressing on one side and periodic pressing on the other (even if it is axiomatic to accept the opinion that the performance "construction" is continuous) spoiling has the opposite effect.
Construction works as continuous actions
On the other hand, it should be kept in mind whether the obligation to construct the building of the superintendent-investor or the builder is in fact for continuous and periodic performance. It is indisputable that the construction contractor does not act once during the construction of a building. But in practice, it is often the recipient of the building right who appears builder-investor, does not act with his own forces and resources to carry out the actual construction, but outsources the work to other contractors. The actual construction actions are carried out by them, and not by the superintendent party under the contract for the establishment of the right to build and for construction, although acting on his behalf and at his expense. The latter only concludes a contract for construction, in fulfillment of its own obligations, as well as the other relevant contracts - for design, for construction and copyright supervision, for coordination and connection of the building with the operating utility companies, etc. But this chain of contracts does not constitute continuous or periodic performance, but one-off various actions to fulfill the main obligation to construct the building. Payments under these contracts should also have no impact, regardless of whether they are lump sum or staged.
As stated, when the contractor has undertaken an obligation to perform different in nature activities in the different stages, and not an obligation to continuously perform the same activity for the entire term of the contract, divided into stages, the contract is not for periodic or continuous performance[9]. The natural question here is whether construction is an activity (construction and installation works), or different in nature activities in different stages.
In contracts for continuous performance, the performance is essentially the same, and is characterized by constancy over time, as the contract does not aim at a final result, but permanence or a permanent state. It is difficult to accept that the construction contract does not aim at the end result - the construction and handover of a finished building, and the goal of the parties is constancy in the construction and installation works. Conversely, each result, as the ultimate goal of the contract, requires technical, factual and legal actions, and a time in which the set of actions will be carried out, in order to achieve the definitions result. As stated, when canceling construction contracts, the essential non-performance is not so much in terms of deadlines, if they are missed, but in the quantitative dimension – the degree of completion. To assume that due to the complexity of the construction processes of a certain building, and the time required for their implementation, when it is not short[10], the contract becomes one for continued performance, is incorrect.
I believe that in construction contracts the interest of the parties is aimed at achieving the final result, and not to any permanence or periodicity. Binding the result to a deadline, or the technical time for its achievement, are not essential features of the contract as such. Because a building, if it is factually and legally possible to build it in a month, but the parties give themselves a deadline of several years for completion, for all sorts of reasons, this should not turn the contract from a one-time performance to a long-term one.
In the conditions of a planned economy the result in the construction contract was raised in absolute value, and the question of the reverse effect of the cancellation did not arise at all, because it was assumed that the capital construction contract could not be cancelled, the rules for non-fulfilment under the ZZD were not applied, and in case of delay, sanctions were imposed and the terms were extended, but the non-fulfilment, cancellation and termination were not at all provided for, nor regulated by law[11]. So e.g. to the amendments to the PPE with SG No. 12 of 1993 on the special grounds for annulment under 262, para. 2 PPE and under Art. 268 of the ZZD, the exception that "This rule does not apply to contracts concluded by socialist organizations in fulfillment of a planned assignment.". However, in the conditions of a market economy, although it can be assumed that the result of the construction contract is a leading goal, it is unjustified and unargued to deny the possibility of the cancellation, or the opposite effect of the cancellation.
It is not unimportant what the specific construction and installation works are. Generally speaking, the stages of construction of a building, after the design and approval of the projects and the issuance of a permit for the construction of a building, cover the clearing of the terrain, removal of waste and earth mass (humus layer, if available), excavation, strengthening on the ground, laying foundations, concrete, reinforced concrete or other structural elements, masonry, hanging roofs and facades, laying external connections for electrification, water supply, sewage, etc., laying internal electrical installations and pipelines, any type of finishing works - external and internal insulation, glazing, painting and plastering, removal of construction waste, etc. All these disparate activities can be performed by different subcontractors, they can also be performed by one entity. But due to its huge specificity and differences, I do not consider that the collective legal definition of item 40 of § 5 of the DR of ZUT, stating that "Construction and installation" are the works through which the constructions are built, repaired, reconstructed, rebuilt, maintained or restore, should be applied when defining some activities as continuous or periodic, as a set, when the end result is aimed at, rather than permanence of the works, respectively, multiple separate performances.
The theory that the obligations of the builder-executor under the construction contract have a long-term nature, and accordingly that the contract was for long-term performance, does not answer the question of the demandability of individual obligations, if we assume that such obligations are present. For example, the financial lease contract is with continuous performance of the obligations of the lessor and periodic performance of the obligations of the lessee[12]. If the builder's obligation is one - to build and put into operation a building with a certain deadline - the question arises whether there are separate obligations with separate maturities, the non-compliance of which may lead to the cancellation of the contract, as well as how the deadline for presentation should be calculated of the claim - the statute of limitations under Art. 87, para. 5 of the ZZD begins to run for each individual default on the part of the debtor, which is sufficient to give rise to the right to rescission, from the moment of its implementation /Decision No. 239 of 03.07.2014 under City Decree No. 1019/2014, G. K., IV G. O. of the Supreme Court/. If the builder's obligation is continuous and he "must not stop building", it will appear that any construction contract is liable to be canceled at any time, since there is hardly any construction work to be carried on around the clock, even and when it does not concern technological deadlines. And so it is, as it is the deadline is important to pretend. What's more, I believe that even if deadlines were introduced for the individual stages, for example for Act No. 14 (rough construction), for Act No. 15, Act No. 16, this does not make the contract either continuous or periodic, nor will the omission of any of these terms be grounds for annulment of the contract, except in the special case of Art. 262, para. 2, proposition first from the PPE - if it becomes clear that the contractor will not be able to complete the work on time or only if the delay in view of the deadline is significant.
The practice of the courts
Despite the above, part of the judicial practice does not seem to take these elements into account, assuming, without discussion, that the construction contract is for long-term performance /Decision No. 279 of 12.02.2019 of the Supreme Court of Appeal No. 2905/2017, Item II, TC/, and in this connection the spoiling was always ahead /Decision No. 324 of 27.11.2012 of the Supreme Court of Appeals under Administrative Procedure No. 487/2012., Decision No. 1346 of 14.12.2011 of the SGS pursuant to No. 1004/2010./ It is also accepted that even if the contract stipulates a reversal of the cancellation, such a clause should not be applied, as contrary to the law, precisely because the construction contract was for continuous execution - Decision No. 260101 of 09/07/2022 of OS - Stara Zagora pursuant to No. 67/2017.
In other cases, the performances of both parties have been examined and it has been accepted that the construction contract is bilaterally continuous - given the agreed period of 24 months, stages of implementation of the various construction projects - according to a "linear schedule", method of payment for the individual stages of the construction of construction projects - after their acceptance with act No. 7 for a completed intermediate stage of construction of the object or sub-object according to the linear schedule and the financial plan i.e. the performances of both parties are of continuous performance - Decision No. 467 of 15.05.2015 of the Administrative Court - Burgas under City Decree No. 1977/2014.
Conversely, again when analyzing the performances, it is assumed that the arrangement of completion of the rough construction of the building within 3 months does not make the contract with continuous and periodic performance, due to the short term, and the cancellation has a reverse effect - Decision No. 145 of 15.12.2009 of the Supreme Court of Appeal No. 250/2009, Item I, TC.
Of interest is a case study concerning contract for preparation of project documentation and implementation of SMR for the construction of an elevator cage and reconstruction of toilets according to approved project documentation. For the performance of the assigned work, the parties have agreed to perform the assigned work in two stages: 1) preparation of the project documentation in period of 30 working days from the date of conclusion of the contract; and 2) execution of the construction and assembly works of the object in period of 60 working days after approval of the project documentation. The remuneration was payable in two installments, as follows: 1) first installment in the amount of 50% of the remuneration, payable in advance upon conclusion of the contract; and 2) a second installment in the amount of the 50% balance of the consideration, payable upon acceptance of the construction portion of the site.
The court held that, despite their common source, each of the continuous or periodic performance constituted something independent of itself. In contrast to these cases, the main counter-performances of both parties under the production contract are not for continuous or periodic performance - the contractor has committed to a final result (one time performance) – within a certain period to prepare project documentation and to execute certain SMPs, and the contracting authority has undertaken to pay remuneration for this, and thus the agreed deadlines for execution do not lead to a conclusion of duration (constant, continuous pretense of proper behavior over time) of the agreed performances – Decision No. 772 of 19.04.2013 of the Supreme Court of Appeal No. 3427/2012, Decision No. 541 of 20.06.2014 of the Supreme Court of Appeal No. 4390/2013, Item I Fr., TK.
It is also assumed that even the performance of the contract continues more than 1 year, from a technological point of view, the term of validity of the transaction for the implementation of SMR does not characterize it as a contract for continuous implementation and the cancellation of the contract has the opposite effect - Decision No. 84 of 23.07.2015 of the Administrative Court - Vratsa pursuant to No. 29/2014.
The arrangement for construction and its acceptance by the contracting authority in stages may also be relevant for the assessment of whether the destruction has a reverse effect, in the assessment of the suitability of the completed construction, according to Art. 265, para. 2 of the ZZD – Decision No. 23 of 08/04/2014 of the Supreme Court of Appeal No. 1938/2013, Item I, TC.
In other decisions, without discussing the characteristics of the contract and the essence of counter-obligations, it is assumed that the cancellation of the contract for the establishment of the right to build has the opposite effect, i.e. that performance is not of continuous or periodic performance - Decision No. 372 of 08.05.2009 of the Supreme Court of Appeal under City Decree No. 4641/2008, 1st year, Civil Code, Decision of 17.02.2012 of OS - Stara Zagora according to city ordinance No. 551/2011., Decision No. 624 of 4.10.2013 of the OS - Ruse pursuant to City Decree No. 420/2013.
From the above, it can be reasonably concluded that the contract for the establishment of the right to build and for construction is not in all cases one for long-term and periodic performance, but can be such in exceptional cases. Construction contracts may not be for one-time performance when installation works are carried out on a subscription basis (periodic performance) or long-term repair works of one type, for a certain period (continuous performance). In the most general and widespread hypothesis - when the owners of the land carry out a one-time establishment of the surface of the receiver-builder, and the latter undertakes to build a building (and builds it in a certain period), or a builder without real rights executes a contract for complete CMR construction of a building, the contract is for the final result (one time performance), but it can also be qualified as unilaterally continuous, but not one - bilaterally continuous - for which retroactive cancellation is inadmissible, according to Art. 88, para. 1 of the ZZD. The assessment of whether the specific contract is for one-time performance, unilateral or bilateral long-term should be done very carefully in each individual case.
Ivan Nikolaev, attorney-at-law
[1] As well as lease contracts that contain elements of a tenancy relationship - Decision No. 2547 of 28.06.2013 of the Municipal Council - Blagoevgrad under City Decree No. 315/2013, Decision No. 359 of 14.07.2010 of OS - Varna according to etc. No. 930/2009
[2] But the contract for one-time delivery is not for long-term performance, even though the transport itself takes a considerable time - Decision No. 4132 of 06.9.2014 of the SGS pursuant to City Decree No. 4595/2014.
[3] The similarities are in the mechanisms of concluding and executing the contract – one party transfers the property right, and the other fulfills its obligations systematically in a certain period of time. However, unlike the maintenance and maintenance contract, the construction contract usually has deadlines - contractual and legal, and the consideration for construction is performed in several years, while in maintenance and maintenance we can talk about decades of performance.
[4] The contract for security in the usual sense should be for a continuous action, insofar as there are essentially identical performance actions (one continuous action - security).
[5] The specific obligations under the contract, which in my opinion are standard for any construction supervision contract, were: to carry out an assessment of investment projects for their compliance with existing construction requirements and to exercise construction supervision, pre-investment studies, preparation of the design process and coordination of the construction process until the construction is put into operation, with the parties agreeing that the specification of the project/site, the individual types of works and the deadlines for their implementation will be carried out with bilaterally signed annexes, in which the amount of remuneration will also be agreed upon. For the works performed, the parties should sign protocols in which the contractor declares what has been done, and the client accepts it. The contracting authority made the payments due to the contractor against a regularly issued document /invoice, bill, etc./, certifying the payment, after the acceptance of the work performed. Also, the contracting authority undertook to make a monthly payment to the contractor, and to make the difference for additional payment for a specific contract through a separate annex within 7 days of invoicing the stage.
[6] However, nowhere in the theory does it speak of a periodic construction contract, which I think is an omission as far as one is possible, e.g. in subscription road maintenance of a municipal road network - the main activity that is repeated periodically is filling potholes and asphalting - identical performances repeated over a specified or indefinite period of time.
[7] Kalaidzhiev, A. Obligation law. Common part. Fifth edition. Sofia, Sibi, 2010, p. 375. Milkov, P. Contract system in construction. Sofia, IC "Labor and Law", 2014, pp. 236, 297.
[8] Dimitrov, M. The construction contract. Sofia. Sibi, 2012, p. 40, 262. But this view of the reverse effect of cancellation in long-term or periodic contracts contradicts Art. 88, para. 1 of the ZZD.
[9] Decision No. 147 of 31.10.2019 of the Supreme Court of Appeal No. 50178/2016, Item I, GK.
[10] And if the leading argument for defining the construction contract as long-term is only its duration, then the question arises - after how many days/months/years is it accepted that the contract is long-term, and what is the lower limit to accept it? that it is with one time?
[11] Rachev, A. Cancellation of bilateral contracts due to non-performance. Sofia, Science and Art, 1967, 89.
[12] Decision No. 89 of 31.07.2017 of the Supreme Court of Appeal under Item No. 907/2016, Item II, TC.
