No matter whether the contract is valid or not, the actual constructor has the right to claim interest loss based on the claim right of project funds after acceptance.
Tianhui company failed to deliver the house on time, so yufengyuan company forcibly cleared the construction site on August 15, 2016.
3.
According to the principle of contract relativity, the three parties in this case belong to two different contractual relationships.
The employer shall be liable to the actual constructor only within the scope of the unpaid project price”.
Yufengyuan company paid Tianhui company 77800000 yuan for the project involved.
During the trial of this case, the plaintiff applied for appraisal of the construction cost of the Chengguo right bank 2#, 3# buildings of the price limited commercial houses in Weicheng district.
2.
If the actual construction contractor claims the rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court shall add the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the third party in the case.
If the parties concerned fail to agree on the calculation and payment standard of interest on the project funds, it shall be calculated according to the interest rate of similar loans in the same period issued by the people’s Bank of China.
Yufengyuan company forcibly cleared the construction site on August 15, 2016, which led to the dispute in this case.
Full text: practical issues: Article 43 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects (I) (fashi [2020] No.
On May 17, 2016, the foundation and main body of 3# building, 2#, 3# podium building were accepted, and individual quality problems after completion acceptance on July 27, 2016 need to be rectified.
On July 10, 2015, the main body of 2# building and 3# building passed the acceptance.
Coordination by relevant departments failed.
There is a dispute between the two parties.
Tianhui company failed to deliver the house on time.
This provision gives the actual constructor the right to, The employer may be required to be responsible for the actual constructor within the scope of unpaid project funds.
4.
Later, the plaintiff submitted the project settlement statement to Tianhui company, and Tianhui company refused to accept it on the ground that the plaintiff’s settlement statement did not comply with the contract, so the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court on November 15, 2016.
4.
On December 20, 2013, the plaintiff Zhao and the defendant Tianhui signed the entrustment for the construction of Chengguo right bank project 2#, 3# building of limited price commercial housing in Weicheng District, which agreed that Tianhui entrusted the Construction Party of Chengguo right bank project department 2#, 3# building of yufengyuan company to Zhao Puxun for construction.
Key points of judgment – the retrial of the Supreme Court held that the original trial ruled whether there was a lack of evidence to prove whether yufengyuan company (the employer) was jointly and severally liable to the actual constructor within the scope of unpaid project funds and interest.
Case overview 1.
25) where the actual construction contractor brings a lawsuit against a subcontractor or illegal subcontractor, the people’s court shall accept it according to law.
This provision gives the actual constructor the right to, The employer may be required to be responsible for the actual constructor within the scope of unpaid project funds.
The judicial interpretation of the construction project stipulates that “if the actual constructor claims rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court may add a subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the party to the case.
The main works of the plaintiff’s construction 2# building have been accepted, the project has been completed and passed the acceptance, and the first and second units of the 3# building have not been completed.
1 The basic legal relationship of this case is that yufengyuan company, as the employer, contracted the project involved in the case to the contractor Tianhui company, which subcontracted the 2nd and 3rd buildings of the project to Zhao Puxun for construction, but Zhao Puxun did not have the corresponding construction labor qualification for the project involved in the construction case.
The project settlement between yufengyuan company and Tianhui company shall be determined according to the construction contract signed by both parties.
Yufengyuan company required Tianhui company to deliver the house by the end of July 2016.
The agreement confirms that the total price of the Chengguo right bank 2#, 3# building project undertaken by Zhao Puxun is 144784217.69 yuan.
After finding out the amount of the construction project price owed by the employer to the subcontractor or illegal subcontractor, the people’s court shall make a judgment that the employer shall be liable to the actual construction contractor within the scope of the construction project price owed.
Introduction: the judicial interpretation of the construction project stipulates that “if the actual constructor claims rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court may add a subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the party to the case.
The court entrusted the cost agency to appraise the project cost, and the opinion was 109910925.16 yuan.
According to Article 4 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of construction contract dispute cases of construction projects, the contract involved in the case is invalid..
It was decided in the original trial that yufengyuan company should bear joint and several liability for Zhao Puxun within the scope of project funds owed to Tianhui company, which was not improper.
Yufengyuan company required Tianhui company to deliver the house by the end of July 2016.
On March 26, 2018, the plaintiff Zhao Puxun signed an agreement with the defendant Tianhui company.
3.
2.
The construction contract and agreement signed by Tianhui company and Zhao Puxun are binding on the opposite party of the contract.
According to the above judicial interpretation, “the employer shall be liable to the actual constructor within the scope of unpaid construction project price”, what form of responsibility is it? Referee points 1 In the absence of contract agreement (breaking through the relativity of the contract), the actual constructor may require the employer to bear joint and several liability for repayment within the scope of unpaid project funds.
The employer shall be liable to the actual constructor only within the scope of the unpaid project price”.
On March 15, 2014, the plaintiff entered the site to organize the construction of the 2# building, and the construction of the 3# building was started on May 4, 2014.
The main works of Building 2 constructed by Zhao Puxun passed the acceptance, and units 1 and 2 of building 3 were not completed.
5.
