Construction Completion Acceptance and Handover: Their Legal Effects
: : Also discusses the final determination of project quality responsibility
Abstract: The completion acceptance of a construction project or delivery for use is often regarded as a key node for preliminary confirmation of project quality in law and practice. However, when quality problems are exposed in the subsequent use of the project, the legal effect of this "qualified" status and its impact on the contractor's quality responsibility boundary have become the focus of controversy in judicial practice. This article systematically combs through relevant laws, regulations and judicial interpretations such as the Civil Code and the Construction Law, and analyzes the legal positioning, core effectiveness and inherent limitations of completion acceptance and delivery for use. Specially incorporating the authoritative views of Judge the Supreme People's Court, it deeply explains that qualified construction project quality is the fundamental prerequisite for the contractor to pay the project price (or discounted compensation) (regardless of the validity of the contract), and effectively demonstrates the legal basis of "qualified completion acceptance does not mean absolute qualified quality". Through an in-depth analysis of the Supreme People's Court gazette case (the second construction case in Nantong, Jiangsu) and related important judgment documents (such as the Dalian Municipal Case, the Yinghui Plastic Industry Case, the Qinghai Linfeng Case, and the Chongqing Company Case), it is revealed that in judicial practice, the precise application and grasp of core principles such as prioritizing substantive quality over formal acceptance, the legal consequences of unauthorized use (including exceptions and separation of responsibilities), the independence of quality warranty liability, and the impact of contract validity on quality liability and price settlement are revealed. Ultimately, this article aims to clarify the true boundaries and determination logic of quality responsibility after project delivery, and provide practical risk prevention and dispute resolution guidelines for all parties involved in the construction project based on authoritative judicial judgment.
Keywords: construction project; completion acceptance; delivery; project quality; quality responsibility; hidden defects; warranty liability; unauthorized use
1. Introduction
(1) Question raising
In the practice of construction projects in my country, completion acceptance and delivery are not only important milestones in the project life cycle, but are also often regarded by all parties (especially the developer and contractor) as a sign that the project construction is basically completed and the quality is recognized. The common belief tends to be that once the completion acceptance documents are obtained or actual delivery is completed, the contractor's primary quality responsibility comes to an end. However, "Why do projects that pass the acceptance inspection frequently have quality problems?" "Does the construction party still need to bear responsibility many years after delivery?" Such disputes are common, highlighting the possible gap between formal "qualification" and the intrinsic quality of the project. When leakage, cracking or even structural safety hazards occur in a costly building asset during use, can the legal status of passing the completion acceptance or being delivered for use constitute an absolute defense for the contractor to exempt or reduce its quality liability? This issue not only concerns the economic interests of all parties, but also directly affects the construction market order and public safety.
(2) Research significance
Accurately defining the legal status of completion acceptance or delivery in the determination of project quality responsibility has significant theoretical and practical value. At the theoretical level, it helps to deepen the understanding and consistent application of legal systems such as construction project quality standards, legal validity of acceptance procedures, contract performance, liability for breach of contract (especially fundamental breach of contract), warranty liability, tort liability, and the impact of contract validity on price settlement. At the practical level, it has direct guiding significance for guiding all parties involved in construction projects (contractors, contractors, supervisors, designers, etc.) to accurately understand their rights and obligations, standardize contract behavior, strengthen whole-process quality management, effectively prevent and resolve project quality disputes, and maintain the safety of construction product use and market transaction order. In particular, the authoritative views of Judge the Supreme People's Court and related typical cases are integrated and analyzed to more accurately grasp the core logic and development trends of judicial decisions.
(3) Research methods and main content
This article mainly adopts the method of combining normative analysis and case study. First, the core laws, regulations and judicial interpretations such as the Civil Code, Construction Law, Construction Project Quality Management Regulations and the Supreme People's Court Interpretation on Applicable Legal Issues in the Trial of Construction Contract Dispute Cases (I) (referred to as "Construction Interpretation (I)") are systematically reviewed. Secondly, it focuses on incorporating and analyzing a series of authoritative views of Judge the Supreme People's Court Xie Yong on the adjudication of construction project contract disputes, paying particular attention to his important discussions on the determination of contract validity, the relationship between quality compliance and payment terms, the principle of substantive quality priority, the legal consequences of unauthorized use, the scope of quality liability subjects, and the distinction between warranty liability and defect liability period. Thirdly, we conduct an in-depth analysis of representative the Supreme People's Court cases such as Jiangsu Nantong Second Construction Case (a case gazetted by the Supreme People's Court), Dalian Municipal Government Case, Yinghui Plastic Industry Case, Qinghai Linfeng Case, and a Chongqing Company Case, to refine the adjudication rules and see through the adjudication logic. Finally, it integrates legal analysis, authoritative viewpoints and legal precedents to provide targeted practical suggestions.
2. Analysis of the legal positioning and effectiveness of completion acceptance and delivery for use
(1) Legal attributes and functions of completion acceptance
1. Legal procedural requirements and regulatory functions, emphasizing quality protection as priority
Completion acceptance is not only a contractual act, but also a legally mandatory procedure. Article 61 of the "Construction Law" and Article 16 of the "Construction Project Quality Management Regulations" clearly stipulate that projects must pass the acceptance inspection before they can be delivered for use. This reflects the state’s mandatory supervision of construction project quality (related to public safety). As Judge Xie Yong emphasized in his opinion, violation of mandatory regulations to protect the quality of construction projects (especially qualification management) will lead to the invalidation of the contract, highlighting the priority of quality protection. The acceptance procedure is an important step in realizing this regulatory intention and aims to make a preliminary confirmation through statutory procedures whether the project meets basic safety and use requirements.
2. The significance of the contract performance node and the basis for price settlement are based on qualified quality.
Completion acceptance is an important demarcation point for the performance of the contract, and is associated with the contractor's obligation to pay the price and receive the project (the Civil Code Article 799). Qualified acceptance is usually a prerequisite for the contractor to request settlement. However, Judge Xie Yong’s opinion clearly stated (sourced from “the Supreme People's Court Analysis of 82 Judicial Opinions on Xie Yong’s Construction Project Contract Disputes of the First Civil Tribunal”, the same below) that regardless of whether the construction contract is valid or not, the quality of the construction project is a prerequisite for the contractor to pay the project price (or discounted compensation). This means that even if the project is formally accepted and accepted, if it is later proven that the project is substantively substandard, the employer's payment obligations may be affected or have the right to refuse payment (for example, if the project is still substandard after repairs).
(2) Legal consequences of delivery for use
1. Sign of transfer of rights
The delivery of the project marks the transfer of the possession, use, income and other core property rights of the project entity (real estate) from the builder (or temporary possession by the builder) to the contractor or end user. From then on, the contractor can actually control and utilize the project to achieve its investment or use purposes.
2.Boundary point of risk transfer
According to the Civil Code’s general rules on the transfer of subject matter risks (Article 604), and combined with the characteristics of construction projects, project delivery is usually also the point at which risks not caused by inherent quality defects of the project are transferred. That is, after delivery, if force majeure such as fire, flood, earthquake, etc. occurs, or the project is damaged or lost due to infringement by a third party, the risk will generally be borne by the contractor who has accepted the project, provided that the contractor's liability is excluded.
(3) The validity and inherent limitations of preliminary certification of completion acceptance
1. Confirmation of preliminary probative force and its litigation significance
It is generally recognized in law and judicial practice that the completion acceptance conclusion made through legal procedures, or the fact that the project has been actually accepted and put into use by the contractor, has important preliminary proving effect. This means that, in the absence of contrary evidence, it can be presumed that at the time of acceptance or delivery, the apparent condition of the project and aspects that can be verified through regular inspection methods are in compliance with the contract and relevant standards. The direct manifestation of this preliminary probative force in litigation is the preliminary transfer of the burden of proof: usually the party claiming that the project has quality problems (mostly the contractor) bears the burden of proof to prove the existence, cause and non-compliance of the defects with the standards.
2. In-depth analysis of inherent limitations
However, this preliminary proof is by no means a final quality assurance, and there are profound and unavoidable inherent limitations behind it:
(1) Limitations of the time dimension: Acceptance is the confirmation of the status of the project at a specific static point in time, and cannot cover its performance evolution during long-term dynamic use. Building materials age, structures undergo fatigue loads, environmental factors continue to act, and latent stresses may gradually be released. Acceptance cannot predict and guarantee the durability and stability of the project throughout its design life. The problems that arose four years after passing the acceptance inspection in the Dalian Municipal Government case are clear evidence of this.
(2) Limitations in scope and depth dimensions: As-built acceptance is essentially a sampling, non-destructive inspection with limited coverage and depth of detection. Especially for hidden projects (such as foundation treatment effects, pile foundation quality, internal steel structure of the main structure, airtightness of embedded pipelines, etc.), it is often impossible to directly observe or conduct comprehensive inspections during acceptance, and mainly rely on construction process records, material test reports and limited on-site inspection methods (such as rebound, ultrasonic, coring, etc.). These methods themselves have errors or blind spots, and it is difficult to find all potential problems 100%.
(3) Limitations of the standards themselves: The standards (national norms, industry standards, local standards, design documents, contract agreements) on which acceptance is based are the product of cognitive levels and technical conditions in a specific period, and may be lagging, incomplete, or unable to foresee all potential risks. Even if the project fully complies with the standards at the time of acceptance, subsequent use may expose problems that are not covered or insufficiently considered by the standards themselves. At the same time, the standards themselves are constantly evolving, but existing projects cannot be held to higher standards in the future.
3. Legal basis and empirical research on the legal basis and empirical research that passing the completion acceptance does not mean that the quality is absolutely qualified
Based on the above analysis, neither legal theory nor judicial practice supports that the completion acceptance is simply equivalent to the absolute quality of the project. Its legal roots lie in the comprehensive consideration of contract performance, breach of contract liability, tort liability and the particularity of construction products.
(1) Basic legal analysis
1. Qualified quality is the fundamental requirement for payment.
Judge Xie Yong’s opinion profoundly reveals the fundamental status of quality qualification. Regardless of whether the contract is valid (the Civil Code Article 801) or invalid (the Civil Code Article 793), the unqualified project (and failure to effectively repair it) will directly shake the contractor's right basis to request payment for the project. The contractor has the right to require repairs. If the repairs cannot be made or the repairs are still unqualified, the contractor may refuse to pay or reduce the price.
2. The objective existence of hidden defects and the contractor’s long-term liability
The law does not exempt the contractor from liability for hidden engineering defects and potential quality problems due to the acceptance process. Article 80 of the "Construction Law" stipulates the quality responsibility requirement "within a reasonable service life", combined with the opinion of Judge Xie Yong that all construction entities (general contractors, subcontractors, subcontractors, borrowing qualifications, etc.) are required to bear responsibility for the quality of the project (possibly jointly and severally), indicating that the contractor's quality obligations are long-term, especially for structural safety and main functions. This liability may go beyond the general warranty and constitute a statutory post-contractual obligation or product quality liability (by analogy) or even give rise to liability in tort.
3. Legal evaluation of the contractor’s fundamental breach of contract
If the quality problem stems from the contractor's fundamental breach of contract (such as cutting corners, using inferior materials, seriously violating specifications), even if it formally passes the acceptance inspection, it cannot change the fact that it has not fulfilled its core obligation to deliver a qualified project. The contractor can pursue its comprehensive liability for breach of contract based on the Civil Code, which may far exceed the scope of the warranty (for example, the Nantong Second Construction Case awarded compensation for rework costs).
4. The impact of contract validity on liability assumption and price settlement
Judge Xie Yong’s views systematically sorted out the various situations that lead to the invalidity of a contract. According to Articles 157 and 793 of the Civil Code, the core of the principle of post-invalidation treatment is still quality: if the project is qualified, the company will be compensated at a discounted price as stipulated in the contract; if the project is unqualified and the repair is qualified, the repair fee will be borne, and if the repair is still unqualified, the person will not have the right to request compensation. If you are at fault, you will also be liable for losses. This clearly shows that even if the acceptance is passed, if the contract is invalid and the contractor is at fault, his rights (such as compensation according to the contract price) will be limited and he will have to bear corresponding losses.
5. Consequences of defects in acceptance procedures
If the completion acceptance procedure itself contains violations of laws and regulations, unqualified participants, missing key tests, or fraud, etc., the legitimacy of the acceptance conclusion will be questionable, and its probative power as evidence will be greatly reduced or even denied. During the trial, the court has the right to review the compliance of the acceptance procedures and judge the credibility of the acceptance conclusions accordingly. Naturally, a "qualified" conclusion drawn based on invalid or defective procedures cannot be used as an effective basis for determining that the project quality is qualified.
(2) Review of judicial opinions and in-depth analysis of typical cases
Judicial practice has clearly demonstrated the adjudicative logic and core principles in handling such disputes through a series of judgments.
1. Referee's point of view 1: Substantial quality takes precedence over formal acceptance, and passing acceptance cannot combat obvious and serious quality problems that exist objectively.
(1) Authoritative adjudication gist: the Supreme People's Court Gazette Case (Nantong Second Construction Case)
The gist of the case in the bulletin clearly stated: "There are actual obvious quality problems in the project. If the contractor claims that the project quality is qualified based on the completion acceptance certificate, etc., the people's court will not support it." This establishes that in quality disputes, objectively existing quality facts take precedence over formal acceptance certificates, which has important guiding significance.
(2) Case analysis: Nantong Second Construction Project
Faced with the widespread leakage of the roof caused by the contractor's cutting of corners (lack of a key waterproof layer) after passing the acceptance inspection, the court clearly ruled that "the certificate of completion acceptance...cannot form an effective confrontation with this objective fact", and further distinguished the boundaries between warranty liability and fundamental liability for breach of contract. It held that this situation exceeded the scope of only assuming warranty obligations, and the contractor should bear the compensation liability equivalent to the entire rework. The court also supported the plan for the contractor to entrust a third party to repair the problem when the trust between the two parties was lost, which reflected the pragmatism of the referee.
(3) Case analysis: Dalian Municipal Government Case [(2019) Supreme Court Civil Application No. 5769)]
Four years after passing the acceptance inspection, damage was caused due to hidden engineering defects (insufficient buried depth of the pipeline). The Supreme Court refuted the idea that "passing the acceptance inspection means immunity from liability", emphasizing that "passing the acceptance inspection does not mean that the project is truly qualified", and held the contractor's long-term liability for the hidden defects. This is consistent with the premise of quality and long-term responsibility emphasized by Judge Xie Yong.
2. Referee's opinion two: The "defensive value" of qualified acceptance and its applicable conditions - non-fundamental issues and procedural compliance
Case Analysis: Yinghui Adhesive Industry Case [(2020) Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6924] - The defense effect of qualified acceptance in specific circumstances. In this case, after the project had been accepted, delivered, and the settlement price was confirmed, the contractor refused to pay the balance due to non-structural problems (leakage on the floor and roof). The Supreme People's Court held that under such circumstances, the contractor's claim for rights (especially its refusal to pay for the project) based on non-fundamental issues lacked basis, especially since it failed to prove that it had effectively claimed rights during the warranty period. This reflects the "defensive" value of qualified acceptance when the procedures are complete, the problem is not fundamental, and the contractor may be lazy to exercise its rights, aiming to maintain the stability of the transaction.
3. Judicial opinion three: Legal consequences and liability definition of unauthorized use without completion acceptance - application and limitations of the risk rule
(1) Legal basis: Interpretation of Article 14 of "Interpretation of Construction Project Disputes (1)"
This article stipulates the legal consequences of the contractor's unauthorized use of unaccepted projects: in principle, it loses its right to claim non-structural quality problems in the used part, but the contractor's responsibility for the foundation and main structure is not exempted. The original intention of the legislation is to allocate risks for the contractor's violation of legal procedures.
(2) Case Analysis: Qinghai Linfeng Case [(2019) Supreme Court No. 166]
"Presumptively qualified" does not mean exemption from warranty obligations. In this case, after the contractor used the unaccepted project without authorization, his claim to deduct money due to quality issues was rejected. However, the Supreme Court made a key distinction: the "deemed (or presumed) qualified" effect of "non-support" stipulated in the judicial interpretation is limited to preventing the contractor from using the defect to defend or claim, but does not eliminate the contractor's future quality warranty obligations. Therefore, the court still supported the withholding of quality warranty money.
(3) Case analysis: Case of a company in Chongqing [(2023) Supreme Court Civil Application No. 3322]
Continuing construction is also an unauthorized use, and the separation of payment obligations and future claims. In this case, the contractor continued construction on the basis of unfinished projects that had not been inspected and accepted, which was determined to be "unauthorized use." Later, it was discovered that there was a problem with the original main structure, and the project payment was refused. The Supreme Court believes that even if the main structure is involved, the contractor cannot refuse to pay for the project after unauthorized use, unless it can be proven that safety has been seriously affected. The court separated existing payment obligations from future claims arising from structural problems, allowing the contractor to make separate claims for repair costs or losses actually incurred in the future.
4. The independent value and supplementary role of the project quality warranty system
The warranty system established in the "Construction Project Quality Management Regulations" is an important legal system independent of completion acceptance and is a statutory supplement to the limitations of acceptance. During the statutory or agreed warranty period, the contractor has the obligation to repair quality problems within the scope of the warranty (not due to improper use, etc.) free of charge. This obligation is not exempted because the project has passed the acceptance inspection, nor is it automatically extinguished because the contractor has used it without authorization (as shown in the Qinghai Linfeng case). However, it should be noted that warranty liability is mainly repair, and its scope and degree are different from comprehensive liability arising from fundamental breach of contract or tort.
4. Practical inspiration and risk prevention suggestions
Based on the above legal provisions and judicial practice, the following more specific and practical risk prevention suggestions are provided to all participants in the construction project:
(1) Suggestions to the contractor
1. Strengthen process control and contract clause design
(1) When bidding or selecting a contractor, conduct a comprehensive and prudent due diligence investigation on its qualifications, performance, technical capabilities, financial status and reputation.
(2) In the construction contract, clearly agree on specific quality standards (which can be higher than national standards), brands, specifications, and performance requirements of key materials and equipment, refine acceptance procedures and standards for concealed projects and key processes, and agree on sampling methods and proportions for physical inspections.
(3) Set clear and deterrent quality breach liability clauses. Especially for serious behaviors such as cutting corners, using substandard materials, and violating mandatory standards, higher liquidated damages or a clear range of loss compensation (including direct losses and foreseeable indirect losses) can be agreed upon.
(4) Be sure to include similar clauses such as "Successful completion acceptance does not exempt the contractor from its project quality responsibilities according to legal provisions or contractual agreements, including but not limited to hidden engineering defects, quality problems caused by violations of design documents or construction specifications, and warranty obligations during the warranty period" to clarify the understanding of both parties on the effectiveness of acceptance.
(5) Strengthen supervision and inspection during the construction process, give full play to the role of the supervision unit, conduct side stations, inspections, and parallel inspections of key nodes and hidden projects, promptly discover and provide written instructions for rectification of quality problems, and keep relevant records.
2. Strictly organize the completion acceptance and resolutely prevent unauthorized use
(1) Set up an acceptance team including professionals from design, supervision, construction and other parties in accordance with the law. If necessary, third-party experts can be hired to participate.
(2) Conduct comprehensive inspections, actual measurements, and functional tests in strict accordance with national acceptance specifications, design documents, and contract agreements, record in detail any unqualified items found, and clarify rectification requirements and deadlines.
(3) Only after the problems have been rectified and the re-inspection has passed, the final completion acceptance document can be signed. Never lower standards or leave problems behind due to deadlines or other non-technical reasons.
(4) No matter how urgently needed the project is, it must strictly abide by the legal procedure of "first inspect and accept it, then deliver it for use". Do not receive, use or allow a third party to enter for decoration or use in advance, let alone continue construction on the basis of a project that has not completed acceptance (such as the case of a company in Chongqing), otherwise you will face great legal risks and severely limit your rights to claim quality issues.
3. Make good use of warranty rights, promptly and effectively secure evidence and safeguard rights.
(1) Establish a complete project file management system and properly keep all documents related to project quality.
(2) If any quality problems are discovered during the warranty period, immediately notify the contractor in writing (such as registered mail, express delivery, email with delivery receipt, etc.), describe the problem phenomenon and location in detail, require it to perform warranty obligations within a reasonable period, and keep the delivery certificate and the other party's reply (if any).
(3) Take detailed photos and videos of quality problems, and mark the date and location. If emergency treatment is required, the contractor should be notified at the same time, and relevant expense invoices and maintenance records should be retained as a basis for subsequent claims.
(4) If the contractor unreasonably refuses or delays the warranty, or the repair effect is poor, a forensic appraisal institution with corresponding qualifications should be entrusted in a timely manner to conduct an appraisal to clarify the cause of the quality problem, responsibility, repair plan and cost. The appraisal report is a key piece of evidence in litigation.
(5) Pay attention to the statute of limitations for various claims (warranty claims, breach of contract damages claims, tort damages claims), which are usually three years (from the date when the right holder knows or should know that the rights are damaged and the obligor knows). Rights must be asserted through negotiation, mediation, or litigation/arbitration before the expiration of the statute of limitations.
(2) Suggestions to the contractor
1. Adhere to the bottom line of quality and internalize "substantial qualification" into corporate culture
(1) Regard project quality as the lifeline and core competitiveness of the enterprise, establish a "quality first" awareness, and abandon luck and short-term behavior.
(2) Strictly abide by laws and regulations, mandatory standards, design documents and contract agreements to ensure the inherent quality of the project and the safety and durability of long-term use.
(3) Strengthen quality education and skills training for project managers and front-line workers, and implement the quality responsibility system.
2. Standardize process management and documentation, and build a complete evidence chain
(1) Establish and improve the whole-process quality control system and recording system from material procurement, on-site inspection, construction procedures, concealed project acceptance to sub-item acceptance.
(2) Ensure that all construction records, test reports, acceptance documents, design changes, project negotiations, etc. are true, accurate, complete and timely, and archived in a standardized manner for verification. This is crucial to demonstrate that quality control obligations are met.
(3) Actively cooperate with various inspections and acceptance work of the contractor and supervision organization, promptly rectify the problems discovered and leave records. Ensure that the completion acceptance procedures are legal and compliant.
3. Actively fulfill warranty obligations and create a good market image
(1) Recognize that warranty responsibilities are legal and contractual obligations, and establish a complete customer service and warranty response system.
(2) Respond to and verify the warranty requirements raised by the contractor in a timely manner, and proactively and thoroughly repair problems within the scope of the warranty for free.
(3) Use good warranty services as an important means to improve customer satisfaction, maintain corporate reputation, and enhance market competitiveness.
4. Make reasonable use of legal defense and safeguard your own rights and interests in accordance with the law.
(1) When facing quality objections from the contractor, first make preliminary judgment and communication based on the contract stipulations and acceptance documents. For problems that are not our responsibility, have exceeded the warranty period, or the contractor failed to claim in time, we can make reasonable defenses based on the completion acceptance certificate, etc.
(2) If the dispute is large or involves complex technical issues, you may consider jointly entrusting or applying for court-entrusted appraisal. Respect objective and fair appraisal conclusions.
(3) When the evidence conclusively points to one's own responsibility, one should actively negotiate a solution with the contractor, strive to resolve the conflict at the minimum cost, and avoid the expansion of litigation risks.
(4) Claim the project payment in a timely manner in accordance with the law, and exercise the right of defense or file a lawsuit against the contractor's unreasonable default. In accordance with legal provisions and judgments (such as the Linfeng case), perform invoice issuance and other incidental obligations.
5. Conclusion
(1) Summary of main points
The completion acceptance of a construction project or its delivery for use, as an important node in legal procedures and contract performance, has the legal effect of confirming the basic availability of the project, triggering payment and receipt obligations, preliminary transfer of risks, and preliminary proof that the project meets the standards at that time. However, in view of the inherent limitations of time, space, scope, depth, and standards of acceptance itself, as well as the objective existence of hidden defects and possible fundamental breaches of contract by the contractor, this "qualified" status is not a final and absolute recognition of the quality of the project.
(2) Judicial adjudication trends and core logic
Through an in-depth analysis of the Supreme People's Court gazette case and multiple Supreme Court judgments, it can be seen that judicial practice adheres to the principle of substance over form when dealing with such disputes, emphasizing the exploration of the objective quality status of the project and the root causes of defects. The court will comprehensively consider multiple factors such as the acceptance status, contract stipulations, nature of the defect (whether it is structural or fundamental), severity, cause, timing of claim, evidence status (especially judicial appraisal opinions), and the behavior of the contractor (such as whether it is used without authorization), and make precise division of responsibilities within the legal framework. The probative power of completion acceptance will be penetrated when faced with obvious and serious quality problems that exist objectively. However, it has a certain defense value in the case of non-fundamental problems, procedural compliance and the contractor may be lazy in exercising its rights. The employer's unauthorized use will cause it to bear corresponding risks, but it does not completely relieve the contractor of its fundamental responsibility for structural safety and future warranty.
(3) Inspiration for construction engineering practice
The research conclusions of this article have important implications for regulating market behavior in construction projects: Project quality is the core of construction activities, and negligence in any link may lead to long-term legal risks. The contractor cannot regard completion inspection as a foolproof guarantee, but should implement quality control throughout the entire life cycle of the project and exercise its rights in a timely manner in accordance with the law. Contractors should abandon taking chances and regard honest performance of contracts and ensuring that the project is substantively qualified as the cornerstone of survival and development. All participants in the construction project should have a deep understanding of the complex relationship between completion acceptance and final quality responsibility, respect legal rules, strengthen risk management, and work together to improve the quality of construction products and maintain market order and public safety.