Fixing Socket Waved End Nail Plate
[(2018) Min Min Zhong No.
Renhe company appealed that: (1) the first instance found that the project involved had passed the completion acceptance error.
（2） The project involved has quality problems.
The appellant (defendant of the first instance and counterclaim plaintiff): Putian Renhe Xintiandi public facilities Co., Ltd., whose domicile is room 801, No.
Entrusted litigation agent: Tang XX, male, born on September 23rd, 1979, Han nationality, lives in Jiangling County, Hubei Province.
The court held that the court’s (2014) Min Min Zhong Zi No.
The “Fujian housing construction completion acceptance report” on August 23, 2011 is the pre procedure in the completion acceptance link, and the data is only in the preparation stage, and the design unit has not yet stamped its seal.
151] -.
Yuejia company believed that there was fraud, and should exercise the cancellation right within one year, rather than claiming in this case.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Li XX, lawyer of Guangdong Shangyi law firm.
and the appellant Putian Renhe Xintiandi public facilities Co., Ltd.
The appeal request of Yuejia company shall be rejected.
Therefore, the counterclaim of Renhe company that Yuejia company should bear 100000 yuan of liquidated damages to it cannot be established, and it is not improper that it is not supported in the first instance.
Renhe company has obtained the right to use the civil air defense project involved for 40 years, and Yuejia company should ensure that there are no quality problems in the main project during this period.
（3） In the first instance, it was not ruled that Yuejia company was wrong to bear the construction water and electricity charges..
Therefore, the part of the shop offsetting the project payment should still belong to Yuejia company.
The trial of this case has been concluded.
(hereinafter referred to as Yuejia company) appealed to this court against the civil judgment (2014) pmcz No.
Yuejia company was completely deceived into signing the handover certificate.
—-.
Whether the civil air defense projects pass the completion acceptance shall be subject to the “civil air defense project quality supervision report” issued by the civil air defense quality supervision station to the civil air defense competent department.
546 judgment held that Yuejia company subcontracted the earthwork and stonework involved to Xu Hao, an outsider, in violation of the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and was invalid.
Moreover, the determination of invalidity of the subcontract was not the basis for the person and the company to resist the payment of project funds.
The gist of the judgment — the Fujian Provincial High Court held that: (IV) whether Yuejia company has breached the contract in the process of performance, and whether it should bear the liability for breach of contract.
Reading tips —— the construction contract does not stipulate the responsibility after the subcontract is invalid, and the employer knows the subcontracting situation, then both the employer and the contractor are at fault, and the employer’s claim that the contractor should bear liquidated damages is not supported.
Liang Zhaolin and Li yanru, the entrusted litigation agents of the appellant Yuejia company, and Tang Jinhua, the entrusted litigation agent of the appellant Renren and the company, attended the court.
2 District, Xincheng, Qingyuan City, Guangdong Province.
(hereinafter referred to as Renhe company).
Therefore, the subcontract between Yuejia company and Xu Hao was determined to be invalid by other cases, and both the person and the company and Yuejia company were at fault.
The contractor and the company are requested to pay 4322741.28 yuan of project funds and corresponding interest.
Renhe company argued against Yuejia company’s appeal that: after signing the shop transfer agreement, both parties signed the handover letter, and all handover procedures have been completed.
Yuejia company appealed that although the two parties signed the handover confirmation of the four shops, they did not actually deliver them for use.
294 of Fujian Putian intermediate people’s court due to the case of construction contract dispute with the appellant Putian Renhe and Xintiandi public facilities Co., Ltd.
The appellant Qingyuan Yuejia Construction Engineering Co., Ltd.
The construction unit bears such quality responsibility has nothing to do with whether it has passed the completion acceptance and whether it has passed the warranty period.
7, Shishi Road, Taiping neighborhood committee, Longqiao street, Chengxiang District, Putian City, Fujian Province.
The filing system of civil air defense projects does not mean that the Civil Air Defense Department exercises only administrative management.
—— judgment documents — civil judgment of Fujian Higher People’s Court (2018) Min Min Zhong No.
According to Article 2 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of construction contract disputes, although the Construction Subcontract of the construction project was invalid, However, if the construction project involved has passed the completion acceptance and the contractor requests to pay the price according to the contract, it should still be supported.
For the foundation and main structure works, even if people and companies use them without authorization, the quality problems should still be borne by Yuejia company.
The defendant is Putian people and employees of Xintiandi public facilities Co., Ltd.
Legal representative: Fang XX, manager.
151 appellant (plaintiff of first instance and defendant of counterclaim): Qingyuan Yuejia Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., with its domicile at the first floor of building B, Jianshe building, No.
Source of the case — the dispute case between the appellant Qingyuan Yuejia Construction Engineering Co., Ltd.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Liang XX, a lawyer of Beijing Zhongshang law firm.
☺☺☺ Pay attention to get the latest information, construction engineering | real estate professional –.
After accepting the case, this court formed a collegial panel according to law, The trial was held in public on March 1st, 2018.
Legal representative: Zhang XX, general manager.
The construction contract involved in the case did not stipulate how Yuejia company should bear legal liability after the subcontract was invalid, and the person and the company did not raise different opinions on Yuejia company’s claim that Xu Hao’s subcontracting was arranged by the person and the company in the first instance, so it can be concluded that the person and the company knew about Xu Hao’s subcontracting.
The actual situation is that the project involved has had serious quality problems that can be seen by the naked eye, and Yuejia company should bear the responsibility of repairing.
Yuejia company has not possessed and used the right, and the person and company have no evidence to prove the basis for Yuejia company to use the shops.
