Contractors use a contractual compensation scheme to adjust the risk allocation. Under Georgian law, the nature of a compensation relationship is determined by the intent of the parties, as expressed in the language of the contract. Georgian courts interpret compensation agreements in the same way as other contracts. In particular, the compensation agreement is applied on its terms if the language is clear and unambiguous. If the language is ambiguous, the courts strictly lay the language against the compensated party, with any presumption contrary to the intention of compensating compensation; and interpret all the ambiguities against the author. A comparison between these two subsections shows that the compensation prohibitions are not the same. In point b), only agreements in which the donor of an exemption (for example. B a subcontractor) declares itself ready to compensate compensation (for example. B, the general contractor) of the other`s negligence alone, are not applicable. On the other hand, under subsection c, compensation agreements are not applicable in an architect, engineering or surveyor contract, except for agreements by which one party, the compensation giver, agrees to compensate the other party, compensation, for the illegal conduct of compensation or other persons employed or used by the re-manager.

Thus, according to the revised statutes, a general contractor who is only partially guilty can seek compensation from a subcontractor for his partial negligence. On the other hand, an architect, engineer or surveyor cannot claim compensation for his debt, even if the competent expert is only partially indebted. On the contrary, an architect, engineer or surveyor can only seek compensation for the part of the damage caused by the other party`s illegal conduct. A significant change in Georgian law, effective June 1, 2016, makes compensation agreements in contracts with engineering, architectural or rural surveying services (“Design” package) and not applicable, except for compensation for damages resulting from negligence, lightness or intentional misconduct of the compensated party or its agents or employees. A copy of HB943 modified by O.C.G.A. No. 13-8-2, as it was passed, is attached. We see many issues arising from the application of the revised status. We doubt, for example, that work contracts may have two different compensation clauses, one for design (more restrictive compensation) and the other for construction (less restrictive compensation, which can still be responsible for 100% of construction losses, even 1% of the fault).