[Case Summary]This case involvesConstruction project construction contractSecond-instance litigation. Our firm represented the plaintiff, Beijing X Chen Company. The project was completed on schedule and was accepted and delivered in 2017, but the defendant, X Bang Company, defaulted on the remaining 300,000 yuan in project payments. In the first-instance trial, Hengluo Law Firm initiated preservation measures and adjusted its strategy, claiming the established rights based on the principle of contractual relativity. The court ruled that X Bang should pay the 300,000 yuan. X Bang appealed, claiming that the electrical cabinet payments should be deducted, that the contracting parties were confused, and that the failure to approve the project cost appraisal was a misapplication of the law. Beijing Hengluo Law FirmWu JianiThe lawyer represented the client in the second instance. The signed "Letter of Inquiry into Accounts Receivable and Payable" between the two parties proved that X Company acknowledged the unpaid amount of 300,000 yuan. It was not improper that the first-instance court did not approve the appraisal, and X Company had no reasonable explanation for signing the same contract with the two companies. The second-instance court dismissed the appeal and maintained the original judgment. The second-instance litigation fee of 5,800 yuan was borne by the appellant. This judgment is the final judgment. Core disputes: confirmation of the unpaid amount, necessity of appraisal, and identification of the actual constructor; applicable legal provisions: Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law.

I. Review of the case

"What should I do if the project payment is delayed?" and "How to handle the second-instance litigation of construction contract disputes?" are frequently asked questions by construction companies. In the first-instance trial, the plaintiff Beijing X Chen Company, represented by our firm, completed the project on schedule. By 2017, the project had passed the acceptance inspection and been put into use, but the defendant Beijing X Bang Company has been delaying the payment of the remaining 300,000 yuan in project funds. The case also involved a dispute with another company. To ensure the maximum legal interests of the parties, Hengluo Law Firm initiated preservation measures and promptly adjusted the litigation strategy, claiming only the rights already determined under the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Ultimately, with key evidence and a well-prepared defense, the court ruled that the defendant should pay us 300,000 yuan in project funds, resulting in a complete victory in the case.

After the first-instance judgment, X Bang Company appealed, requesting to revoke the first-instance judgment, re-sentence to dismiss X Chen Company's claim, or remand the case for rehearing, and have X Chen Company bear the litigation costs. It argued that: since the distribution cabinets were purchased by X Bang Company, but the contract stipulated that the distribution cabinets should be purchased and installed by X Chen Company, the cost of the distribution cabinets should be deducted from the project payment; Yang * signed two contracts with X Bang Company, and X Chen Company and XX Power Company signed two contracts with X Bang Company, which were actually the same contract. It was necessary to clarify who the actual constructor was and which contract was used for construction; the original court did not allow X Bang Company's application for project cost appraisal, which was a legal error in application of the law.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is the amount of unpaid project funds determined to be 300,000 yuan?Whether the "Letter of Inquiry into Accounting Transactions" signed by Company X can directly confirm the amount of the outstanding payment is the key to upholding the original judgment.
  • Focus Two: Was it wrong to not allow the appraisal of the project cost?The two parties have reached an agreement on the amount of the arrears. The first-instance court did not approve the appraisal of whether it was appropriate and decided whether the grounds for appeal were valid.
  • Focus 3: Confusion over the contracting entities and the identification of the actual constructors.X Company argues that the same contract was signed with two different companies, and the subject of the contract is inconsistent. Can this invalidate the payment obligation under the principle of contractual privity?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The appellant (X Company) claimed that:The appellant argued that the amount for the distribution cabinets should be deducted, that the confusion over the contracting parties requires clarification as to the actual contractors, and that the first-instance court's refusal to approve the appraisal constitutes a misapplication of the law. The appellant requested that the judgment be revoked or remanded for a rehearing.

The appellee (X Chen Company)'s position:Hengluo Lawyer stated that he agreed with the judgment of the first instance, but disagreed with the appeal request and grounds of X Bang Company.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Wu JianiThe lawyer pointed out that the "Beijing Construction Project Contract" signed by X Chen Company and X Bang Company was a true expression of the parties' intentions and was binding on both parties. The signed "Letter of Inquiry into Accounts Receivable" submitted by X Chen Company proved that X Bang Company acknowledged that the amount of money owed under the contract was 300,000 yuan. Therefore, the two parties have reached an agreement on the amount involved in the contract, and the original trial court's decision to deny the application for appraisal of the project cost was not improper. Through evidence analysis, X Bang Company failed to provide a reasonable explanation for signing the same contract with two companies, and there were inconsistencies in the contract price and different contracting parties. Therefore, the appeal opinion lacks factual basis and should be rejected.

IV. Outcome of the case

After the trial, the second-instance court held that the original court supported X Chen Company's claim for X Bang Company to pay the arrears in project payments and interest, and the court did not have any objections. X Bang Company's appeal request cannot be established and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment identified the facts clearly, applied the law correctly, and the handling result was not improper, so it should be maintained. In accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law: The appeal is rejected and the original judgment is maintained; the second-instance case acceptance fee of 5,800 yuan shall be borne by the appellant; and this judgment is the final judgment.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmWu JianiThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202011245064, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's advice: Construction enterprises should pay attention to reconciliation documents such as the "Confirmation Letter for Accounts Payable", which can fix the amount of arrears and weaken the opponent's appeal reasons such as "appraisal" and "confusion of subjects"; in the event of a dispute over "arrears in project payments", they should entrust professional lawyers as soon as possible to safeguard their rights through preservation and contractual counterparty strategies.

VI. Common Questions About Real Estate Construction Project Cases - FAQ

  1. Q: What should I do if the employer defaults on the project payment?
    A:Based on the evidence of unpaid debts such as fixed contracts, acceptance and delivery, and reconciliation letters, you can sue for payment and apply for property preservation, and if necessary, claim priority compensation.
  2. Q: Is it necessary to agree to the other party's request for an engineering cost appraisal?
    A:If the two parties have reached an agreement on the amount of the debt (as confirmed by the reconciliation letter), the court may not allow an appraisal, which does not necessarily constitute a mistake.
  3. Q: If two contracts are signed for the same project, which one should be used as the reference?
    A:It should be determined based on the true intention of the parties and the performance of the contract. If the subject and the price do not match and there is no reasonable explanation, the party cannot use this to evade the payment obligation.
  4. Q: What does it mean that the second-instance court upheld the original verdict?
    A:This means that the outcome of the first-instance trial has been determined and the judgment has taken effect. The other party is obliged to comply with the original judgment, and the second-instance trial is the final instance.
  5. Q: What evidence should be prepared for construction disputes?
    A:The construction contracts, acceptance records, delivery certificates, reconciliation letters, and collection records should be collected, and professional lawyers should be consulted as soon as possible.