COMMUNITIES of owners: Claim of constructive damage to the building, which is the best expert opinion, or which is which is better in the eyes of a judge? Not all expert reports deserve the same valuation with regard to assessment of the expert test, i.e., in lawsuits and constructive a property damage claim procedures, it is decisive or at least very important opinions or expert reports of Architects (test Queen), and the law, before this test and its valuation, goes on to say dryly that judges have to govern by the rule of reasoning but which is really the rule Sana he criticizes? The learned, have tried to offer some interpretative guidelines on this rule, and so these have been evolving to interpret what is that of healthy criticism, as well as: to) first of all, was considered the best opinion, the better based, and it is chosen by the judge, which is substantiated, that wasn’t incoherent, contradictory or contrary to any reasonable principle. (b) then he argued or thought that better than the best substantiation, should seek the best with another technique; and this can be deduced, comparing one opinion on another, seeming to be who has the character according to the majority (of the conclusions of several of the experts who have intervened in the lawsuit). To summarize, the criterion is chosen whatever the majority according to data and tools employed and managed data. (((c) but the doctrine has been estimated that the criteria (a) and (b) are insufficient, when not, sometimes erroneous: the best expertise is which gives the judge the essential core, to convince the reasons for its decision. To do so, not worth an excessive generalization, mixture or confusion of concepts. Reports or opinions should be solid, and that are not confounded by other reports with generalized statements intending to counteract them. The report You should test the etiology of the damage, the reason, the reason, the cause of the construction defects. Because if they are wrong, the part (its architect) contrary must be at least to your height and distort, what they say, the pathology, etiology.

And this is the approach taken by our architects; from the beginning, our opinions are aimed to show the judge damage (literal and photo description), their cause, reason by which has appeared the damage, (memory) the quote for complete repair (measurement and budget) and especially the ratification and exposure of the groundwork in the Act of judgment, having previously studied contrary expert reports. A trial is very important to take reports or mediocre opinions to muddle. Opinions are not only mandatory, but fundamental to the resolution of the matter. You play it you there, and it is precisely there, you have to bet for whom better do you.