In business practice, there are still situations where contractors or suppliers view the outcome of their work in an extremely narrow sense—namely, that if an item functions and fulfills its primary purpose, it is considered to be of good quality. However, according to lawyers, this view is refuted by both the provisions of the Civil Code and consistent court practice.
“Quality is not just about functionality. It is the sum of all the characteristics specified in the contract,” emphasizes Dainius Antanaitis, an attorney at the law firm AVOCAD .
The Civil Code clearly stipulates that the quality of work performed by a contractor must first and foremost comply with the terms of the contract. Only if those terms are not specified do the standard requirements for such work apply.
This means that the result of the work must not only be functional but also meet all the specifications set forth in the contract—technical, functional, and often aesthetic as well. “If the parties have agreed on specific parameters—such as color, texture, or other visual elements—these become no less important than the functionality of the item itself. Deviating from them means that the contract has not been properly fulfilled,” explains D. Antanaitis.
LAT's position: Compliance with all parameters is essential
The Supreme Court of Lithuania has repeatedly noted in its case law that the quality of the work’s result is linked not only to its functionality but also to the fulfillment of all the characteristics specified in the contract. In one case, the court examined a situation where the contractor manufactured equipment that functioned but did not meet the technical parameters specified in the contract. The court held that:
- The contractor may not choose to fulfill only part of its contractual obligations;
- The attempt to prioritize certain qualities while ignoring others is not justified;
- Any deviation from the terms of the contract that has not been agreed upon with the client is considered a breach of contract.
“Even if an item works but does not possess all the characteristics specified in the contract, it cannot be considered of good quality. The contract must be fulfilled in its entirety, not selectively,” the lawyer comments.
A common mistake: “If it works, it must be right”
In practice, AVOCAD’s lawyers encounter cases where businesses tend to ignore contractual requirements regarding aesthetics or specifications, believing them to be non-essential. However, this position is risky. If it can be determined from the contract or its circumstances that certain visual or technical characteristics were important, their non-compliance may be considered a defect, entitling the client to demand:
- correction of defects,
- price reduction,
- or other legal remedies.
This practice sends a clear message: the terms of a contract are not a mere formality—they define the standard of quality. “It is important for businesses to understand that quality is not just about whether an item works or does not work. It is also important whether the result obtained matches what was agreed upon. Any deviation, if not agreed upon, can become the basis for a dispute,” summarizes D. Antanaitis.