It was found that Wang Bo was the on-site supervisor of section 13 of Fuzhou Expressway from May 2004 to March 2005; Article 53.5 of the general conditions of contract clearly stipulates that the supervisor has the right to determine the claim.
[Supreme People’s Court (2014) min Yi Zhong Zi No.
Entrusted agent: Zhang XX, male, Han nationality, born on April 27, 1975, project manager of the company.
issued a commencement order to the contractors of each contract section including China Railway Corporation , it is clear that the construction period shall be calculated from February 18, 2004.
Entrusted agent: Li x, lawyer of Beijing XX law firm.
The determined part of the cost during the first shutdown from 2004 to 2005 is 6778661.54 yuan.
If so, what is the amount of compensation.
China Railway Corporation carried out the construction as agreed in the contract, but did not complete it within the construction period agreed in the contract.
253 (hereinafter referred to as the minutes of meeting No.
It is found that the claim for this part refers to: in the statistical table of December 2004, there are only details from December 1 to 6, without details of other days; From January to June 2004 and from January to March 2005, only the statistical table of monthly work stoppage and slowdown signed and confirmed by the on-site supervisors, and the statistical table of daily work stoppage and slowdown signed and confirmed by the on-site supervisors.
56] The Supreme People’s court held that: (III) whether Ruixun company should compensate China Railway Corporation for the loss of suspension and slowdown.
China Railway Corporation’s appeal to Ruixun company for compensation for this part of the loss is not well founded and should be rejected.
Source of case: dispute over construction contract between the appellant China Railway 22nd Bureau Group No.
As for the appeal claim of Ruixun company, Wang Bo, who signed the above claim materials, was not his supervisor and had no right to determine the reasons for the claim.
8 civil judgment.
4 Engineering Co., Ltd.
Therefore, when Ruixun company has no evidence to prove that the visa of the supervisor “Wang Bo” on the basis of the above claim is false, the court of first instance ruled that Ruixun company should compensate China Railway Corporation for the above determinable part of the loss of work stoppage and slowdown recognized by the supervisor Wang Bo, which is not improper.
For this controversial issue, the defense of China Railway Corporation and Ruixun company also includes the following two parts: 1.
Appellant (defendant of the first instance): Anhui Ruixun Transportation Development Co., Ltd., with its domicile at Ziyun Road, Hefei Economic and Technological Development Zone, Anhui Province (in the private science and technology economic Park).
Entrusted agent: Wang XX, lawyer of Anhui XX law firm.
The main content is that it was decided by the Department of transportation of Anhui Province (hereinafter referred to as the Department of transportation of Anhui Province) Recover the construction and operation right of Fuzhou Expressway and hand it over to Anhui Expressway Company as the new owner of the project for construction and operation..
39 Heping Road, Gaobeidian City, Hebei Province.
Legal representative: Yang XX, chairman of the company.
Company profile click the blue word above to pay attention to us Construction Engineering | real estate professional Reading tips The fact that the construction party claims to suspend or slow down the work shall be confirmed by the visa of the supervision unit or the correspondence between the construction party and the construction party.
The cost of the uncertain part of the cost of stopping and idling personnel and mechanical equipment during the first shutdown from 2004 to 2005 is 6929833.87 yuan.
Judgment document civil judgment of the Supreme People’s Court of the people’s Republic of China (2014) min Yi Zhong Zi No.
and the appellee Anhui Expressway Holding Group Co., Ltd.
The court of first instance did not support China Railway Corporation’s claim for the loss of the uncertain part of the suspension and idling work.
Entrusted agent: Cheng x, lawyer of Anhui XXX law firm.
The loss of work stoppage and slowdown from March 2004 to March 2005.
On December 31 of the same year, the Fourth Engineering Co., Ltd.
of China Railway 18th Bureau Group (later renamed China Railway Corporation, hereinafter referred to as China Railway Corporation) signed the contract agreement for the construction of subgrade works of Fu Zhou Expressway with Ruixun company through bidding It was agreed that Ruixun company would contract out section 13 of Fuzhou Expressway to China Railway Corporation for construction, with a total contract price of 201901950 yuan and a construction period of 22 months.
Entrusted agent: Song XX, lawyer of Anhui XXX law firm.
Legal representative: Liu x, general manager of the company.
The appeal reason of Ruixun company cannot be established, and the court will not accept it.
The above facts show that although there is a monthly presidential table for the loss of the uncertain part of the suspension and idling work, there is no daily claim visa statistical table corresponding to the general statistical table, which is inconsistent with the usual practice of the project involved in the case for determining the loss of the uncertain part of the suspension and idling work.
4 Engineering Co., Ltd., the appellant, Anhui Ruixun Transportation Development Co., Ltd.
China Railway Corporation and Ruixun corporation refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the court.
Appellee (defendant of first instance): Anhui Expressway Holding Group Co., Ltd., with its domicile at No.
Wang Wenfeng and Zhang Xiangyu, entrusted agents of Ruixun Corporation, Zhang Anhong and Li Yong, entrusted agents of China Railway Corporation, song Shijun and Cheng Jun, entrusted agents of Anhui Expressway Corporation attended the court The court of first instance found that in 2003, Anhui Ruixin Transportation Development Co., Ltd.
(later renamed Ruixun company, hereinafter referred to as Ruixun company) obtained the construction and operation right of Fuyang Zhouji Expressway (hereinafter referred to as Fuzhou Expressway).
520, Wangjiang West Road, high tech Development Zone, Hefei, Anhui Province.
The court formed a collegial panel according to law and heard the case on March 31, 2014.
253) was formed.
4 Engineering Co., Ltd., with domicile at No.
According to Article 53 of the general conditions of contract, if the contractor makes any claim for additional payment according to any clause of the contract, it shall submit its letter of intent for claim to the supervising engineer and copy it to the owner within 21 days after the first occurrence of the claim event; The supervising engineer shall determine all or part of the claim amount to which the contractor is entitled after consultation with the owner and the contractor.
On February 18, 2004, the office of the chief supervision engineer of Fuzhou Expressway Subgrade Project of Anhui Highway Engineering Construction Supervision Co., Ltd.
The court of first instance ruled that Ruixun company compensated China Railway Corporation for the loss of this part of the determined amount, which is not improper and should be maintained.
On December 22, 2008, Anhui Provincial People’s Government (hereinafter referred to as Anhui provincial government) The coordination meeting for the resumption of construction of Fuzhou Expressway was held, and the minutes of special meeting of Anhui Provincial Government No.
The appellant China Railway 22nd Bureau Group No.
(hereinafter referred to as China Railway Corporation) and the appellant Anhui Ruixun Transportation Development Co., Ltd.
China Railway Corporation completed the construction quantities originally planned to be completed in March 2005 in March 2006.
It is found that it refers to both the specific statistical table of daily shutdown and slowdown signed and confirmed by the on-site supervisors and the statistical table of monthly shutdown and slowdown signed and confirmed by the on-site supervisors, which shows that China Railway Corporation has filed a claim for this part of loss in accordance with the claim procedure, Moreover, the claim has been signed and confirmed by the supervisor, so the claim of China Railway Corporation complies with the provisions of Article 53 of the above general conditions of contract.
Legal representative: Zhou XX, chairman of the company.
(hereinafter referred to as Ruixun company) and the appellee Anhui Expressway Holding Group Co., Ltd.
Entrusted agent: Zhang XX, lawyer of Beijing XX law firm.
56 appellant (plaintiff of first instance): China Railway 22nd Bureau Group No.
(hereinafter referred to as Anhui Expressway Company) are involved in the case of construction contract dispute, Anhui Higher People’s court (hereinafter referred to as the court of first instance) made on October 16, 2013 (2011) Wan min Si Chu Zi No.
