Cause and subject matter of the dispute

Methodologies do not distinguish the cause and subject matter of the dispute (it’s a matter of craftsmanship). For example, the cause of the dispute is whether the general contractor has delayed the performance of the contract and why. The subject-matter of the dispute is both the cause, but also whether the investor effectively withdrew from the contract (and the question of compensation and many other issues). If the cause was well-known, the assessment of the entire rest of the subject matter of the dispute never changes the facts. If the basic fact (cause) is on the Client’s side, we should win differently.

That is why, in my opinion, we should start by determining what the facts are and not what the rules are. As far as the rules are concerned, it is first necessary to answer a very trivial and at the same time difficult question: which rules are ius cogens and which are dispositivium. There are not many clues. For example, when it comes to: a contractual right of withdrawal, withdrawal under the provisions of a reciprocal agreement, withdrawal under the provisions of the contract for work, and in addition the contract contains an enigmatic provision that the parties may withdraw from the contract in the “X” situation, the question is how the contractual term is to be regulated by the Code and what are the consequences when it modifies the provision of ius dispositivum (which is possible) or ius cogens (which is rather impossible).