Recently, the reporter learned from the Dongguan First People's Court that the reason why the court dismissed all the claims of Mr. Chen was that the defendant, as an individual without qualification for decoration, violated the legal prohibition by signing the "Decoration Project Construction Contract" with the plaintiff. Is an invalid contract. It is worth mentioning that the defendant Chen did not appear in court to attend lawsuits and judgments, but he still won the lawsuit.
Finding guerrilla decoration leads to a bunch of trouble
Mr. Chen claimed that he and the defendant Chen (Hunan) signed the "Decoration Project Construction Contract" on December 16, 2010 with a total contract price of 45,000 yuan. The contract stipulated that the construction site was on the 3rd floor of the Shengshihua Building in Wanjiang. The construction period was from December 16, 2010 to March 18, 2011, and Chen contracted the construction of the project in the form of contracted materials. Mr. Chen said that during the execution of the contract, Chen had several breaches of contract. “To date, it has not been possible to provide me with qualification certificates for the decoration industry, which has caused great hidden dangers to the quality of the project.â€
It is understood that Mr. Chen has paid the defendant Chen a total of 320.47 yuan in engineering funds as agreed.
"But the defendant delayed the construction period for no reason. To date, only less than 50% of the project has been completed." During the trial, Mr. Chen said that prior to this, Chen had continued to request advance payments for more construction funds to him for various reasons. After being rejected, the construction was stopped. "In order to reduce unnecessary losses, I had to find another construction team to carry out the construction."
The new engineering team entered and was not completed until September 18, 2011. This was a full six months later than expected. Mr. Chen was very angry and he sued Chen to court.
Claim 66770 was rejected by the court
Mr. Chen calculated an account and the decoration period was delayed for six months. According to the monthly rent of 3,800 yuan, this loss has reached 22,800 yuan.
He also stated that during the construction process, the defendant did not submit his own inspection and acceptance of concealed works and sub-projects according to the agreement, and the defendant who was responsible for the resulting quality risks should be liable for compensation.
In order to protect his own rights and interests, Mr. Chen requested a decree to rescind the "Decoration Project Construction Contract" signed between him and the defendant on December 16, 2010, and refunded the project amount of RMB 32,047 received from the plaintiff and assumed corresponding interest; compensation for material losses. 10208 yuan and bear the corresponding interest, plus the project delay loss 22,800 yuan; a total of about 66,770 yuan.
In this regard, Mr. Chen provided evidence such as the "Decoration Project Construction Contract", the project budget quota table, and receipts for receipts.
However, what depresses Mr. Chen is that the defendant Chen was legally summoned by the court and did not appear in court to participate in the proceedings. No written reply and any evidence were submitted. As a result, he himself still lost the lawsuit, and all the appeals were rejected by the court.
Judge
The contract between the two parties violates the law prohibition is an invalid contract
In the trial of this case, because the defendant did not answer the testimony in court, he did not submit any evidence to the court during the period of the proof. As a result, he renounced the evidence of proof and defense. In this way, he still won the lawsuit.
The judge said that the defendant's absence from the court does not mean that the plaintiff must be able to win the lawsuit.
The court stated that the defendant, as an individual without qualifications for decoration, violated the legal prohibition by signing the "Decoration Project Construction Contract" with the plaintiff and was an invalid contract.
"The contract was ineffective from beginning to end, so there was no question of whether it was dismissed or not." The trial judge stated that the defendant signed a contract with the plaintiff in his own name. The plaintiff should know that it is impossible for an individual to obtain the qualification of a fitting-out company. The signing of invalid contracts is faulty and should bear their own responsibilities."
At the same time, the judge stated that the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to prove that the defendant's renovation project amount and value amounted to proof that the defendant’s return of all the 320,47 yuan project money already collected had no legal basis and the court did not support it.
In addition, the court also rejected the plaintiff Chen’s other claims.
Finding guerrilla decoration leads to a bunch of trouble
Mr. Chen claimed that he and the defendant Chen (Hunan) signed the "Decoration Project Construction Contract" on December 16, 2010 with a total contract price of 45,000 yuan. The contract stipulated that the construction site was on the 3rd floor of the Shengshihua Building in Wanjiang. The construction period was from December 16, 2010 to March 18, 2011, and Chen contracted the construction of the project in the form of contracted materials. Mr. Chen said that during the execution of the contract, Chen had several breaches of contract. “To date, it has not been possible to provide me with qualification certificates for the decoration industry, which has caused great hidden dangers to the quality of the project.â€
It is understood that Mr. Chen has paid the defendant Chen a total of 320.47 yuan in engineering funds as agreed.
"But the defendant delayed the construction period for no reason. To date, only less than 50% of the project has been completed." During the trial, Mr. Chen said that prior to this, Chen had continued to request advance payments for more construction funds to him for various reasons. After being rejected, the construction was stopped. "In order to reduce unnecessary losses, I had to find another construction team to carry out the construction."
The new engineering team entered and was not completed until September 18, 2011. This was a full six months later than expected. Mr. Chen was very angry and he sued Chen to court.
Claim 66770 was rejected by the court
Mr. Chen calculated an account and the decoration period was delayed for six months. According to the monthly rent of 3,800 yuan, this loss has reached 22,800 yuan.
He also stated that during the construction process, the defendant did not submit his own inspection and acceptance of concealed works and sub-projects according to the agreement, and the defendant who was responsible for the resulting quality risks should be liable for compensation.
In order to protect his own rights and interests, Mr. Chen requested a decree to rescind the "Decoration Project Construction Contract" signed between him and the defendant on December 16, 2010, and refunded the project amount of RMB 32,047 received from the plaintiff and assumed corresponding interest; compensation for material losses. 10208 yuan and bear the corresponding interest, plus the project delay loss 22,800 yuan; a total of about 66,770 yuan.
In this regard, Mr. Chen provided evidence such as the "Decoration Project Construction Contract", the project budget quota table, and receipts for receipts.
However, what depresses Mr. Chen is that the defendant Chen was legally summoned by the court and did not appear in court to participate in the proceedings. No written reply and any evidence were submitted. As a result, he himself still lost the lawsuit, and all the appeals were rejected by the court.
Judge
The contract between the two parties violates the law prohibition is an invalid contract
In the trial of this case, because the defendant did not answer the testimony in court, he did not submit any evidence to the court during the period of the proof. As a result, he renounced the evidence of proof and defense. In this way, he still won the lawsuit.
The judge said that the defendant's absence from the court does not mean that the plaintiff must be able to win the lawsuit.
The court stated that the defendant, as an individual without qualifications for decoration, violated the legal prohibition by signing the "Decoration Project Construction Contract" with the plaintiff and was an invalid contract.
"The contract was ineffective from beginning to end, so there was no question of whether it was dismissed or not." The trial judge stated that the defendant signed a contract with the plaintiff in his own name. The plaintiff should know that it is impossible for an individual to obtain the qualification of a fitting-out company. The signing of invalid contracts is faulty and should bear their own responsibilities."
At the same time, the judge stated that the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to prove that the defendant's renovation project amount and value amounted to proof that the defendant’s return of all the 320,47 yuan project money already collected had no legal basis and the court did not support it.
In addition, the court also rejected the plaintiff Chen’s other claims.
Kitchen Faucet,Kitchen Taps,Brass Kitchen Faucet,Sink Mixer Kitchen Faucet
Zhejiang minmetals huitong import and export Co., Ltd , https://www.zjminmetals.com