Source of case: China judicial document network judicial document: Supreme People’s Court (2015) MSZ No.
Secondly, after zhangliangyi signed the steel supply contract with wangchuanhua, wangchuanhua transported the steel to the construction site of the construction project as agreed.
Then, the supplementary agreement signed by Shiyan Linsen Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.
Later, when the settlement was made, wangchuanhua and zhangliangyi indicated “zhangliangyi of the third provincial construction company” in the settlement and picking list of the supplied steel.
First of all, Zhang Liangyi’s behavior constitutes apparent agency, which should have been borne by the third company.
The retrial applicant (defendant in the first instance and appellant in the second instance): the respondent of the third construction engineering company of Hubei Industrial construction general contracting group (plaintiff in the first instance and appellee in the second instance): wangchuanhua respondent (defendant in the first instance): facts of Zhang Liangyi’s case I.
Therefore, the third engineering construction company should not bear the joint and several liability for Zhang Liangyi’s debt in case of non-compliance with the law, and the application reasons such as the first and second trials’ order to bear the joint liability are wrong in the application of the law cannot be established.
2687 civil ruling lawyer Zeng Yanjie, who provides you with professional legal advice, Tel.: 13415623370; 13760620686 statement: Text.
Secondly, when Wang ChuanHua sued, he asked Zhang Liangyi to bear the liability for repayment, and the third engineering construction company to bear the joint and several liability for repayment, which was intended to require both parties to bear corresponding liabilities for the debts involved in the case.
During the performance of the construction contract, Zhang Liangyi was fully responsible for the construction of the project and set his office at the project site.
Therefore, the reasons for the application of the third engineering construction company that the judgment of the second instance exceeded the claims could not be established.
(Party A) and the third engineering construction company (Party B) was also signed by Zhang Liangyi in the column of Party B.
Therefore, although Zhang Liangyi signed the steel supply contract with Wang ChuanHua in his own name, based on the above facts, Wang ChuanHua had reason to believe that Zhang Liangyi’s behavior represented the third engineering construction company.
The second instance judgment concluded that Zhang Liangyi’s behavior constituted a prima facie agency, which was in line with the provisions of Article 49 of the contract law of the people’s Republic of China.
Accordingly, the judgment of the first and second instance held that Zhang Liangyi and the third engineering construction company should bear the joint liability for paying off the debts involved in the case, which did not exceed Wang ChuanHua’s claim.
Therefore, it should be recognized that the third engineering construction company recognizes Zhang Liangyi’s construction activities in the name of the company.
The judgment of the second instance that the prima facie agency breaks through the principle of contract relativity and contradicts the determination that Zhang Liangyi is the actual constructor, and the judgment of the second instance that infers the prior facts from the later facts cannot be established.
2、 Whether the law applicable to the order of the second instance that the third engineering construction company and zhangliangyi jointly undertake the liability for repayment is correct, and whether it is beyond the claims.
With regard to agency by estoppel, Article 49 of the contract law of the people’s Republic of China stipulates: “if the actor has no agency power, exceeds the agency power, or enters into a contract in the name of the principal after the agency power is terminated, and the opposite party has reason to believe that the actor has agency power, the agency act is effective.” First of all, when signing the construction contract for “Shuian Xindu” real estate project with the employer Shiyan Linsen Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., Zhang Liangyi signed in the column of the Contractor as the entrusted agent of the third engineering construction company and affixed the official seal of the third engineering construction company.
To sum up, the act of the third engineering construction company about Zhang Liangyi does not constitute a prima facie agency.
whether Zhang Liangyi’s purchase of steel from Wang ChuanHua constitutes a prima facie agency.
However, as Zhang Liangyi expressed his willingness to bear the civil liability in this case in the first and second instance, which has constituted the addition of debt, it is not inappropriate for the second instance to order Zhang Liangyi and the third engineering construction company to bear the joint liability for repayment.
