Judicial principles and studies
Evidence Assessment, FIDIC Contract Amendment, and Compensation
There is consensus that the trial judge has discretion to accept or reject evidence, except where findings lack support or rest on fictitious evidence. A subsequent agreement modified the FIDIC contract by deferring payment until maintenance works are completed and accepted.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
Scholars and courts concur that the trial judge has discretion to evaluate evidence presented, accepting what convinces the judge and rejecting what gives rise to doubt; an appellate court should not reweigh or adjust the parties' evidence except where the trial court's conclusion has no support in the case record or rests on non‑existent (fictitious) evidence.
Summary
The claimant failed to perform the subsequent agreement that amended the FIDIC contract by deferring payment of the invoice until maintenance works were completed and accepted. Such an agreement does not conflict with Article 785 of the Civil Code, as that provision is considered supplementary and parties may contract otherwise by explicit clause in the construction contract. Consequently, the employer was authorized to exercise options against the contractor, including withholding payments until the works conform to contract terms or defective works are remedied. Note: This is a general educational summary and is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
The principle limits appellate review of evidence assessment unless a trial court's finding lacks any evidentiary support; it also confirms that parties may validly agree contractual payment terms that deviate from supplementary statutory rules, enabling employers to withhold payments until acceptance or repair of works.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.