Secondly, according to the fair rules, the calculation base of accounts payable and interest should be the same data.
As the project involved in the case has not gone through the completion acceptance procedure, According to Article 13 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects (FSHI [2004] No.
Legal representative: Ma Zhuma, chairman of the company.
The retrial applicant Guoluo Xueyu Cordyceps sinensis trading market Co., Ltd.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Ma Wenkui, lawyer of Qinghai Jingru law firm.
There was an obvious error in the calculation method of the court of second instance: first, the calculation based on 3163550 yuan by the court of second instance should deduct the renovation cost of the unqualified part of the project quality.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Zhang Shiliang, lawyer of Qinghai Jingru law firm.
Respondent (plaintiff of first instance, defendant of counterclaim, appellant of second instance): Qin Jian, male, Han nationality, lives in Jiangdu, Jiangsu Province.
Therefore, the project involved in the case did not complete the delivery, so the refusal of Xueyu Cordyceps to pay the unpaid project payment is entirely the exercise of the right of defense after performance.
Xueyu Cordyceps applied for retrial and said: first, the original judgment that Xueyu Cordyceps should bear the interest on overdue payment has no factual and legal basis.
14) “If the employer claims rights on the ground that the quality of the used part does not meet the agreement after the construction project has not been completed and accepted, and the employer uses it without authorization, it will not be supported; however, the Contractor shall bear civil liability for the quality of foundation works and main structure within the reasonable service life of the construction project”, The court of second instance took the rent collected by snowy Cordyceps (the employer) as the basis for determining that snowy Cordyceps (the employer) has actually used the project involved in the case, and took the time as the starting point for calculating the interest on the project payment, which is consistent with the facts and has a legal basis.
However, since both parties have not clearly agreed on the construction standards, Qin Dingshu (the Contractor) has completed the construction obligations under the contract, and Xueyu Cordyceps (the employer) also recognizes the project and has been put into operation.
The court has formed a collegial panel for examination according to law, and the examination has been concluded.
The third party in the first instance: Anhui Sanjian Engineering Co., Ltd., with its domicile at No.
and Zhou Xueping.
Since the project quality standard was not clearly stipulated in the construction contract of construction project, the court of second instance determined that Qin Dingshu (the Contractor) was responsible for the quality assurance of the project involved in the case and the applicable law was correct according to the conclusion determined by the relevant technical standards referred to in the judicial appraisal.
III.
The employer and the contractor have not agreed on the construction standards.
It is incorrect for the court of second instance to take the time when Xueyu Cordyceps put the project into use as the delivery time for the calculation of interest on accounts payable..
(hereinafter referred to as Xueyu Cordyceps sinensis company) refused to accept the civil judgment (2020) qingminzhong No.
The case comes from [China referee document network] i.
The third person in the first instance: Zhou Xueping, male, Han nationality, lives in Jiangdu District, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province.
After the project is completed and put into operation (use), should the employer claim to deduct the reinforcement cost (maintenance cost) of the main body of the project from the project payment on the grounds of quality be supported? 2、 The Supreme People’s court held that both parties had no objection to the project payment of 3163550 yuan owed by Xueyu Cordyceps (the employer).
1.
Project delivery: according to Article 61 of the construction law of the people’s Republic of China and Article 16 of the regulations of the people’s Republic of China on the quality management of construction projects, the delivery of construction projects is not only the delivery of the building itself, but also the delivery of construction materials and technical archives; Mobilization test report of building materials, components, fittings and equipment; Quality qualification documents signed by survey, design, construction, engineering supervision and other units; Project warranty signed by the construction unit, etc.
According to the judgment of the second instance, the principal amount to be paid to Qin Jian was 71368.54 yuan, but the interest was 841868.99 yuan.
In the retrial application of Xueyu Cordyceps (the employer), the reason for claiming to deduct the reinforcement cost of the main body of the project from the principal of the project payment cannot be established.
focus of dispute 1 If the construction project has not been completed and accepted, how to determine the starting point of interest on unpaid project funds after the employer leases the completed project involved in the case? 2.
Click the blue ink ， pay attention to whether our two sides have not agreed on the project construction standards ， whether the employer’s claim to deduct the reinforcement cost from the project payment first on the grounds of quality after completion should be supported [according to (2021)] Supreme faminshen No.
5497; retrial applicant (defendant of the first instance, plaintiff of the counterclaim, appellant of the second instance): Golog snow region Cordyceps sinensis trading market Co., Ltd., with its domicile at the east side of the South Ring Road, Dawu Town, Maqin County, Golog Prefecture, Qinghai Province.
5497, civil application for retrial and review of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects such as Guoluo snow region Cordyceps sinensis trading market Co., Ltd.
329 Wuhu Road, Baohe District, Hefei City, Anhui Province.
2.
266 of Qinghai Higher People’s court and applied to the court for retrial due to the dispute over the construction contract with the respondent Qin Jian, Anhui Sanjian Engineering Co., Ltd.
Similarly, the excavation and backfilling expenses arising from the project quality appraisal cannot be deducted from the principal of the project payment first.
Legal representative: Zuo denghong, chairman of the company.
Taking the completion time as the delivery time of completion acceptance in the second instance is a cognitive error and an error in understanding the applicable law.
judgment document: civil ruling of the Supreme People’s Court of the people’s Republic of China (2021) supreme law and min Shen No.
2、 The starting point of project delivery and interest has no factual and legal basis.
and Qinjian, and sorting of civil rulings.
Xueyu Cordyceps (the employer) shall pay the project payment and overdue interest as agreed, This obligation is independent of the quality assurance responsibility that Qin Dingshu (the Contractor) should bear.
