As indicated in the jurisprudence and doctrine: Contracts for the provision of services, as due diligence contracts, consist in the provision, in the interest of another person, of specific factual activities and a set of legal and factual activities. Where the contractor is to work, most often performing repetitive, similar or the same activities, it is usually a contract for the provision of services.

An essential feature of a contract for the provision of services is the performance itself, not the effect. The result of such work may be a result that is not the creation¹. In such contracts, the contractor is responsible for the reliability and diligence of their actions under the concluded contract. In turn, in the result contracts, the contractor is to carry out the designated creation. The creation cannot consist in repetitive physical work on the construction site (Supreme Court judgment of October 21, 2020, I UK 83/19).

Unlike a contract for a specific task, the mandate contract and the contract for the provision of services are due diligence contracts. Although they assume striving to achieve a certain result, the contractor acting with due diligence – in the event of failure to achieve the purpose of the contract – is not liable for failure to perform the obligation.

The mandate contract does not emphasize a specific result as necessary to achieve. Therefore, it is not the result, but the efforts to achieve this result that is the distinguishing element of the mandate contract, i.e. the objectively significant element.In practice, there are many court disputes, in which only the court has to resolve doubts as to the classification of a given contract.