定型化契約條款是業主擬定，承包商對其內容常只有同意或不同意的自由。法院多數認為承包商自願投標，得標後當然要受契約條款的拘束，不得主張內容不公平、無效，判決承包商敗訴。但是，該契約定型化條款是否有效值得探究。工程契約係定型化契約，工程契約的基本內容(一般條款)除涉及法律外，尚有經濟、技術等層面，承包商大多著重權利義務的規定，忽略工程契約的其他內容。
本研究從工程成本及進度規劃檢視工程契約定型化條款之公平性。研究目的有二：(1)從判決中找出已發生的爭議，予以類型化，探討各該類型彼此間的聯結關係(定型化條款)，(2)審查各該類型之定型化契約條款是否公平，除形式上以權利義務是否對等外，另從實質上工程成本、進度規劃之觀點，檢視各該定型化條款是否合理、公平，並討論法院判決是否妥適。
因此，本研究以工程成本組成及進度規劃做為基礎，論述成本及進度於工程契約之意涵，不再限於工程契約的投標、簽訂是否自由，強調實質公平正義，搜集法院有關工程定型化契約68個案例的判決，提出五種定型化條款類型的合理解釋。
研究結果顯示完成一定工作當然會涉及成本、進度，案例的爭議都是工程契約的工作範圍及風險移轉所產生，多數承包商及法院對於工程契約為何是定型化契約，大多瞭解不夠清楚，在實際訴訟中容易失焦。
本研究結果有助於目前承包商對工程契約定型化條款的認識，在訴訟攻擊、防禦上予以完整性論述，進而提高法院判決之勝訴率。

The core of a construction contract is on the scope of work. In order to complete construction work, contractors have to consider cost and time first. In other words, the foundation of work completion is cost and schedule planning, which is also the essence of a construction contract. The research objectives of this study are: (1) Find out the controversies existed in court sentences, classify them into different types, and explore the connection among these types (standardized terms and conditions). (2) Examine the terms and conditions of standard form contracts and their fairness. This study not only checked whether the right and obligation are reciprocal in terms of form, but also substantially inspected whether different types of standardized terms and conditions are reasonable and fair from the viewpoints of construction cost and schedule planning. Taking the formation of construction cost and schedule planning as the foundation, this study argues that the meanings of cost and progress of a construction contract are not only limited to the freedom of bidding and signing of a construction contract, but emphasize substantial fairness and justice. This study searched court sentences of 68 cases relating to standard form contracts of construction projects, and proposed reasonable explanation for five types of standardized conditions. As observed from the results of these lawsuits, the court is not constrained by the terms and conditions of standard form contracts, and thinks that as long as the principles of fairness and justice are violated, the court will judge that the terms and conditions of the contract are invalid.

英文文獻
1. Abdul-Rahmanm, H., Berawi, M., Berawi, A., Mohamed, O., Othman, M. and Yahya, I. (2006). “Delay Mitigation in the Malaysian Construction Industry.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol.132, pp. 125~133.
2. Aibinu, A. and Jagboro, G. (2002). “The Effects of Construction Delays on Project Delivery in Nigerian Construction Industry.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol.20, pp. 593~599.
3. Assaf, S. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006). “Cause of Delay in Large Construction Projects,” International Journal of Project Management, Vol.24, pp. 349~357.
4. Barrie, D. S. and Paulson, B. C. (1992), Professtional Construction Management, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill.
5. Bramble, B.B., D’onofrio, M.F. and Stetson, J.B. (1990), Avioding & Resolving Construction Claims, RS. Means Companay, MA.
6. Beard, M. (2000). “Contractor Claims Based On Encountering Unanticipated Hazardous Materials on Site.” Construction Lawyer, Vol. 20, pp.1~9.
7. Cable, J. (1994), Current Issue in Industrial Economics, St. Martin’s Press, N.Y.
8. Chang, A. (2002). “Reasons for Cost and Schedule Increase for Engineering Design Projects.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol.18, No.1, pp.29-36.
9. Chu, J.M. (2000), “Differing Site Conditions: Whose Risk Are They?” Construction Lawyer, Vol.20, pp.1~13.
10. Clough, R.H. and Sears, G.A. (1994), Construction Contracting, 6th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
11. Colangeloal, J.P. (1989), “Protecting Owners from Subcontractor Extra-Work Claims”, Construction Lawyer, Vol.9, pp.1~13.
12. D’Onofrio, R.M. and Meagheral, A.L. (2013), “What Is A Schedule Good For? A Study of Issues Posed By Schedules on Complex Profects.” Construction Lawyer, Vol.33, pp.1~23.
13. Faridi, A. and El-Sayegh, S. (2006). “Significant Factors Causing Delay in the UAE Construction Industry.” Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 24, pp.1167~1176
14. Fisk, E.R. and Calhoun, J.C. (1992), Contracts and Specifications for Public Works Projects, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
15. Greer, S.A. (2003), “Punch List.” Construction Lawyer, Vol.23, pp.1~11.
16. Halpin, D.W. (1985), Financial and Cost Concepts for Construction Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
17. Halpin, D.W. and Senior, B.A. (2012), Construction Management, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
18. Hughes, G.A. and Barber, J.N. (1993), Building and Civil Engineering Claims in Perspective, Longman Scientific ＆ Technical, London.
19. Hutchings, J.F. (1998), Construction Claims Manual for Residential Contractors, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., N.Y.
20. Lankenau, M.J. (2003). “Owner Caused Delay-Field Overhead Damages.” Cost Engineering, Vol.45, No.9, pp.13-17.
21. O’Brien, J.J. (1998), Construction Change Orders, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., N.Y.
22. Odeh, A. and Battaineh, H. (2002). “Cause of Construction Delay: Traditional Contracts.” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, pp.67~73.
23. Olesal, D.S. (2000), “The Right Steps.” Construction Lawyer
24. Rosen, H.J. (1998), Construction Specifications Writing, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, N. Y.
25. Sawyer, J.G. and Gillott, C.A. (1990), The Digest of FIDIC Conditions, 4th Edition, Thomas Telford Ltd, London.
26. Seppala, C.R (1993), “Contractor's Claims under the FIDIC Civil Engineering Contract.” Construction Lawyer, Vol.13, pp.1~25.
27. Silberman, A.P. (2002), “Beyond Change: Abandonment and Cardinal Change.” Construction Lawyer, Vol.22, pp.1~13.
28. Silberman, A.P. (2005), “Abandonment and Cardinal Change On “Projects From Hell””, Construction Lawyer, Vol.25, pp.1~15.
29. Thomas, H.R. and Mathews, C.T. (1986), An Analysis of The Methods for Measuring Construction Productivity, Pennsylvania.
30. Westcottal, W.B. (2016), “Change Orders vs. Construction Change Directives: The Devil Is In The Details.” Construction Lawyer, Vol.36, pp.1~10.

中文文獻
1. 中華民國仲裁協會 (2010)，仲裁報，第12期，第1頁。
2. 王伯儉 (1996)，「工程契約中『時間』問題之探討」，營建管理季刊，第27期，第45-53頁。
3. 王卓甫、楊高升 (2005)，工程項目管理原理與案例，中國水利水電出版社。
4. 王卓甫、簡迎輝 (2006)，工程項目管理模式及其創新，中國水利水電出版社。
5. 古嘉諄 (2006)，工程法律實務研析㈡，元照出版有限公司。
6. 古嘉諄 (2011)，工程法律實務研析㈥，元照出版有限公司。
7. 朱柏松(1999)，「民法定型化契約規範之適用與解釋」，月旦法學雜誌，第54期，第52~64頁。
8. 吳秉澄 (2002)，工程間接成本問題探討，碩士論文，國立成功大學土木工程系。
9. 李惠貞 (2010)，漏項與數量差異之爭議，工程爭議問題與實務(一)，中華民國仲裁協會。
10. 姚志明 (2015)，公共工程之履約，元照出版有限公司。
11. 姚瑞光 (2002)，民法總則論。
12. 施滄洲 (2004)，契約施工與管理，詹氏書局。
13. 高安祥 (2004)，工程網狀圖原理解析，文笙書局。
14. 張行道、薛西全 (2014)，「最高法院97年度台上字第1654號民事判決意旨評析─以工程管理費與工期關係為例」，仲裁季刊，第99期，第61~78頁。
15. 梁鑑 (1999)，國際工程施工索賠，淑馨出版社。
16. 郭詩收 (2005)，從FIDIC一般條款與我國民法條文之相關性引申合約管理做法，碩士論文，國立成功大學土木工程系。
17. 郭麗華 (2005)，工程間接費用索賠計算方法，碩士論文，國立成功大學土木工程系。
18. 陳自強 (2002)，契約之成立與生效，學林文化事業有限公司。
19. 陳朝和 (2000)，時程規範，碩士論文，國立成功大學土木工程系。
20. 陳新元 (2007)，工程項目管理─施工經濟與經營管理實務，中國水利水電出版社。
21. 曾隆興 (1991)，民法債編總論，修訂三版，作者自刊。
22. 湯禮智 (1998)，國際工程承包總綸，淑馨出版社。
23. 黃价成 (2000)，時程管理體系整合做法，碩士論文，國立成功大學土木工程系。
24. 黃信銓 (2005)，工程契約與規範一般條款的內容與編排―對工程會相關條款之修改建議，碩士論文，國立成功大學土木工程系。
25. 詹森林(2006)，「最高法院與定型化契約法之發展—民法第二四七條之一裁判之研究」，政大法學評論，第94期，第83~171頁。
26. 雷勝強 (1999)，國際工程風險管理與保險，淑馨出版社。
27. 鄭翔元 (2003)，施工專案待命訂約策略，碩士論文，國立成功大學土木工程系。
28. 謝哲勝、李金松 (2010)，工程契約理論與實務，翰蘆出版社。
29. 鍾亦梅 (2005)，工程契約變更與求償之研究，碩士論文，國立高雄第一科技大學營建工程系。