The architectural expert proof report on legal action for constructive defects. The syncretic method versus the analytical method

When exercising legal action on liability for construction defects, it is possible to exercise the ten year liability action or for housing ruin, in accordance to the provisions of article 1591 of the Civil code as well as the Building Management Act, directed against the builder and/or promoter as well as against the surveyor and the architect [1]. In our civil process the general rule of the principle device applies by which the parties are responsible for the task of pleading, setting and proving the facts that support their respective claims. To certify the alleged claims, the plaintiff and the defendants (constructor, promoter, technical architect and architects planner and/or auxiliary director), even though optional, however, for reasons of obvious procedural strategy they tend to turn to the expert test by architects and technical architects in order to obtain a technical opinion on the existence or scope, where appropriate, of such deficiencies, and solutions, with the assessment of the costs concerned. However, does every expert method turn out to be conclusive? Subsequently, a question arises regarding the expert method to be used in the case of Super communities, associated or big urban developments, where it is possible to presume that the shortcomings recur in the different properties. There are several options [2]. Firstly, the empirical-analytical method, that requires the observation and verification of the shortcomings and, in some cases, their statistical analysis. Thus, the empirical data is drawn from the tests and their results, the own experience. One might also bring the realization of the pathology by the inductive method, from particular to general.