On September 6, 2018, Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike applied to the court of first instance for appraisal, requesting the cost appraisal of the project (including primary structure and secondary structure) of Building 2 of the urban life center in Ulanhot.
4 construction company (Party A) contracted the project of Building 2 of Ulanhot oubeisha urban life center to Liu Changyang (Party B).
the special terms did not stipulate that the labor cost not listed in the cost information shall be subject to the market price, and the new evidence submitted by Liu Changyang, Anton and roweco in the second instance could not prove that the market price of labor cost has been confirmed by obessa.
4 construction Inner Mongolia Branch.
4 construction company.
4 construction company to obeisar in the name of Inner Mongolia Branch was 27820708 yuan.
Jiangxi No.4 construction company has applied for enforcement, but the above funds have not been implemented in place.
Jiangxi No.
4 construction company to pay interest on the project funds owed to Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike according to the bank loan interest rate in the same period or the loan market quotation interest rate published by the national interbank lending center, while the standard for Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike to pay interest on the frozen and deducted funds owed by Jiangxi No.
Party A shall be responsible for the delay of construction period caused by Party A’s lack of funds in time.
4 construction company and obessa company did not accept it.
4 construction company has not been determined.
Liu Changluo’s and Liu Weiyang’s claims are not fully based on the original judgment..
According to the construction contract of construction project involved in the case, the contract price is in the form of budget and final settlement quota pricing method, and the special terms stipulate that “all manual materials in the project shall be adjusted according to the cost information of Ulanhot, the price of materials not listed in the cost information shall be subject to the actual purchase price, and the actual purchase price must be signed and approved by Party A.” Since the cost information of Ulanhot does not include labor cost, the appraisal organization adjusts the labor cost according to the quota pricing method, and implements the policy document of the notice on adjusting the unit price of fixed labor wage of construction projects in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (internal construction engineering [2013] No.
– Summary of facts – on July 30, 2014, the employer oubeisha company and the contractor Jiangxi No.
4 construction company signed the internal contracting agreement with Liu Changyang in the name of Inner Mongolia Branch.
4 construction company to determine the price of Liu Changyang, Anton and roweko’s construction project.
4 construction company due to the project involved in the case is the monthly interest rate of 1% or 1.5%, Liu Changyang, Anton, Luo Weike and Jiangxi Sijian company bear different interest standards, resulting in interest difference.
As of September 18, 2015, obeisar had paid 27620708 yuan to Liu Changyang, Anton, Luo Weike and their agents and 200000 yuan to Liu Guijiang of Jiangxi No.
4 construction company signed the construction project construction contract.
587), which does not violate the provisions of the construction contract.
During the construction period, because the project funds of obeisar company were not in place on time, obeisar company promised Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike of the first project Department of Jiangxi fourth construction Inner Mongolia branch that if party a failed to pay the project funds on time, resulting in Party B’s shutdown, all workers’ wages and all expenses incurred shall be borne by Party A.
The above interest difference is the loss suffered by Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike due to the delay in paying the project funds by Jiangxi No.
Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike were unable to pay off the corresponding debts, which was caused by the delay in the payment of project funds by Jiangxi fourth construction company.
After the third party sued, it is judged that the actual constructor and the subcontractor shall jointly bear the repayment responsibility and enforce the relevant funds of the subcontractor.
Can the actual constructor claim the losses suffered by the subcontractor due to the subcontractor’s delay in paying the project funds be supported by the court- Key points of judgment – according to the facts found out, the original judgment ordered Jiangxi No.
Therefore, the amount of losses suffered by Liu Changyang, Anton and lovico due to the delay in the payment of project funds by Jiangxi No.
Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike filed the lawsuit according to the project cost estimate (budget) prepared by them unilaterally, but Jiangxi No.
After the amount of losses is determined, Liu Changyang, Anton and lovico can make another claim.
Liu Changyang, Anton and roweko did not have sufficient basis for claiming other losses, and the original judgment was not supported and not improper.
Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike said that during the construction period, they received a total of 24936708 yuan from obeisar, but the receipt issued by Jiangxi No.
Therefore, the litigation claim of Liu Changyang, Anton and lovico for compensation for losses in this case cannot be established.
4 construction company, which shall be compensated by Jiangxi No.
The Supreme Court of second instance held that – reasons for judgment – 1 In the second instance, the Supreme Court held that first, on whether the amount of unpaid project funds, interest and the subject of responsibility determined in the original judgment are correct (I) on whether the labor cost determined in the original judgment is correct, Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike appealed that the labor cost should be adjusted according to the local market price.
Later, the subcontractor sued the actual constructor to repay the executed amount based on the dispute of enterprise contract and operation contract.
The court held that the parties involved in the case should refer to the agreement on the contract price in the construction contract of construction project signed between obessa company and Jiangxi No.
According to the special terms of the construction contract of construction project involved in the case, the price of materials not listed in the cost information shall be subject to the actual purchase price, which must be signed and approved by Party A.
On October 13, 2015, obessa and Jiangxi No.4 construction company informed Liu Changyang, Anton and rovico to leave the site and take over the project involved.
Although the relevant judgment ordered Liu Changyang, Anton and Luo Weike to pay interest on the funds frozen and deducted by the court.
Source: legal circle of construction real estate – practical issues – the actual constructor believes that because the subcontractor and the employer are in arrears with the project funds involved in the case, he has signed relevant steel and concrete sales contracts and loan contracts with a third party for advance construction.
On the same day, Jiangxi No.
