Judgment result: the case was tried by the court of first instance, and the judgment rejected all claims of the plaintiff.
Huineng company temporarily withheld 25% of the warranty deposit and agreed with Tianfang company to pay after the problem is solved.
During the litigation, Mr.
The warranty period of the construction project shall be calculated from the date of completion acceptance.
If he files a lawsuit as an actual constructor, he shall provide evidence.
Tianfang heyeqi company agreed with huihuineng company and did not recognize song’s claim.
Case: Huineng company and Tianfang company signed the construction contract of construction project, which agreed that Tianfang company would contract a project developed and constructed by Huineng company.
During the warranty period, the thermal insulation layer of the external wall of the house fell off and has not been repaired.
According to paragraph 2 of Article 40 of the regulations on the quality management of construction projects, under normal use conditions, the minimum warranty period of the construction project is: the roof waterproof project, the leakage prevention of toilets, rooms and external walls with water prevention requirements, which is 5 years.
Therefore, it is suggested that the construction unit should actively take measures to safeguard its own legitimate rights and interests when finding project quality problems, and take the initiative to solve the problems to avoid unnecessary losses..
Lawyer Cheng fan questioned that song did not provide relevant evidence to prove that he invested equipment and building materials for the implementation of the construction project and managed the construction project.
The remaining project funds required by song correspond to the amount of the quality assurance deposit.
Although in this case, the court rejected song’s claim according to law, the key documents such as the direct cause, subject of responsibility, scope and proportion of responsibility for the quality problems of the project involved have not been solved, and the quality problems of the project involved still exist.
Secondly, the quality problems of the litigation related projects have not been solved, and the corresponding evidence is provided to support it.
Lawyer Cheng fan accepted the entrustment of Huineng company to represent the case and claimed that Huineng company should not bear liability.
In response to the lawsuit, in order to prove that he was a qualified subject, song provided a call recording with the staff of Yeqi company and Tianfang company.
Case review in this case, song’s choice of subject status is flawed.
In addition, lawyer Cheng fan proposed that, first of all, the return period of the project quality deposit involved in the case has not expired.
Once the project quality warranty period expires, the construction unit will exempt the warranty obligation and no longer compensate for the losses, At that time, it may be more difficult to ask them to take responsibility.
If he files a lawsuit as an affiliated person, he shall obtain the authorization of the affiliated person.
It is difficult to prove that he belongs to the “actual constructor” specified in Article 43 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of construction contract disputes (I), so there is no legal basis for requiring Huineng company to bear supplementary liability.
Song sued Huineng company as the defendant and asked to bear joint and several liability within the scope of the remaining project funds.
Huineng company temporarily withheld part of the quality assurance deposit, which did not violate the contract.
In this case, song did not enter into a contract with Yeqi company.
Later, Tianfang company and Yeqi company signed the professional subcontract of construction project, and Yeqi company was responsible for the internal and external wall insulation system engineering of the project.
The root cause of the dispute in this case is the ownership of the subject of project quality responsibility involved.
Fixing Socket Cross Hole Nail Plate
The project involved in the lawsuit has quality problems and has not been repaired.
The quality assurance deposit is reserved from the project funds payable to ensure that the contractor can repair the defects of the construction project within the defect liability period.
In this case, the relationship between Huineng company and Tianfang company is contracting and general contracting, the relationship between Tianfang company and Yeqi company is contracting and subcontracting, and Huineng company has no contract with song; If we want to break through the relativity of the contract, we need to prove that song is the actual constructor.
In May 2021, Mr.
Song sued Tianfang company as the actual constructor and Yeqi company as the third party, asking Tianfang company to pay the remaining project funds.
Less than 5 years have passed since the completion acceptance of the project involved.
If song’s demands are supported, it is not conducive to the repair of the quality problems of the project and the maintenance of the interests of the owner.
