Ask questions: The construction contract is determined to be valid, and the construction period (580 days) agreed in the construction contract is significantly shorter than the quota construction period (1182 days).
He is good at litigation handling of difficult cases of construction projects and civil and commercial affairs, and special legal affairs of investment M & A and tax planning.
He began to practice as a lawyer in 2005 and founded Chongqing Meiling law firm, the first professional law firm focusing on the construction real estate industry in Southwest China, in 2014.
Moreover, both parties signed the contract after many negotiations.
Can the construction unit claim that the construction contract is invalid on the ground that the agreement violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations? Can the Supreme Court support the application of the construction unit? Case source: retrial of disputes over construction contracts between the first Construction Engineering Co., Ltd.
(Jinyin company) (2018) Supreme Court of second instance No.
Telephone micro signal 15178881010 Lawyer Zhao Yue, graduated from Southwest University of political science and law, Bachelor of law, on-the-job graduate student.
In this regard, the Institute believes that, on the one hand, the quota construction period is usually formulated according to the construction specifications, typical engineering design, the average level of construction enterprises and other factors.
After the final judgment of Guangxi high court, China Construction Third Engineering Bureau refused to accept this determination and applied for retrial.
In the case that the contract is not invalid or cancelled, both parties should respect the contract agreement and confirm that the construction period of the project is 580 days.
On the other hand, in this case, China Construction Third Engineering Bureau, as a large professional construction enterprise, based on the comprehensive consideration of its own construction capacity, market and other factors, and through equal consultation with Jinyin company, agreed on the construction period clause of 580 calendar days in the construction project construction contract, which is a punishment for its own rights and an expression of its true intention.
Contact: (023) 86812518 Mobile wechat: 15178881010 mail box: 490937268@qq.com Address: 14 floor, D1 building, Wutong mansion, 55 Xingsheng Avenue, Yubei District, Chongqing..
In 2018, he was rated as an excellent lawyer in Chongqing, in 2019, he was elected as a representative of the seventh Chongqing lawyers’ Congress and a member of the seventh construction engineering special committee of Chongqing Lawyers Association.
163 (Guangxi high court) held that: Both parties involved in the project are professional enterprises in their fields, and should have a relatively accurate ability to predict the number of days required for the project construction.
In 2020, he was hired as a specially invited administrative law enforcement supervisor of Chongqing Yubei District People’s government, a legal adviser of Chongqing Beibei District Construction Industry Association and a legal adviser of Chongqing Jiangjin district construction and real estate association, In March 2021, he was hired as an expert of the civil and administrative procuratorial expert consultation network of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, in August 2021, he was hired as a legal adviser of Chongqing Yubei District People’s government, and in August 2021, he was hired as a legal adviser of Chongqing Nan’an District Construction Industry Association.
Although it is reasonable, it can not fully and accurately reflect the reasonable construction period of different construction enterprises in different projects when there are differences in actual technical expertise, management level and construction experience.
He is mainly engaged in professional legal services in the construction real estate industry.
The reasonable extension of 48.5 days for the confirmed appraisal opinions shall be confirmed.
Lawyer Zhao Yue has 16 years of practice experience.
Jinyin company disagreed with 7 of the 48.5 days that China Construction Third Engineering Bureau could postpone in the first instance, but did not provide sufficient evidence to prove its claim and was not accepted.
On the ground that the contract in this case was invalid, the court of first instance abandoned the contract agreement of both parties, identified the construction period required by the project, and determined that the reasonable construction period was 1182 days, which violated the principle of “priority of agreement” in the contract and the agreement of the parties, which was obviously improper, and corrected it.
In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, It cannot be presumed that Jinyin company forces it to reduce the reasonable construction period.
of China Construction Third Engineering Bureau (CSCEC Third Engineering Bureau) and Nanning Jinyin Real Estate Co., Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that China Construction Third Engineering Bureau also claimed that the 580 calendar day construction period clause in the construction contract of construction projects was invalid because it violated the mandatory provision of administrative regulations that “reasonable construction period shall not be arbitrarily reduced”.
Although the court of first instance determined that the construction period was improper through appraisal, the second instance agreed to determine the number of days of extension of the construction period that should be obtained by China Construction Third Engineering Bureau on the basis of the appraisal opinion after soliciting the opinions of both parties.
According to the appraisal opinion on construction period issued by Guangxi Branch of Beijing YONGTUO Engineering Consulting Co., Ltd., the reasonable extension of the confirmed construction period is 48.5 days, and the unconfirmed extension of the construction period has been explained in the “appraisal process”.
The claim of China Construction Third Engineering Bureau for retrial also lacks factual basis and cannot be established, which is not supported by the court.
