Wupeng Company and Fangfang Company signed a Framework Agreement in May 2011, agreeing to jointly develop an old city renovation project. The funds for this project were to be borne by Wupeng Company as agreed, with Fangfang Company cooperating with a third party, Pingwu Branch, to apply for government approval. Fangfang Company gradually obtained 28 million yuan from Wupeng Company under the pretext of project approval. Subsequently, Fangfang Company demanded an additional investment of hundreds of millions from Wupeng Company on various grounds, which Wupeng Company naturally did not readily agree to. In January 2017, citing Wupeng Company's failure to provide additional project funds leading to a funding chain break, Fangfang Company issued a Termination Letter notifying Wupeng Company of the dissolution of the Framework Agreement, which would inevitably cause significant losses to Wupeng Company.

Image source: Internet, delete if infringing.

Wupeng Company immediately retained Law Firm A to file a lawsuit, requesting the court to declare that Fangfang Company's act of terminating the contract via the Termination Letter was invalid. The court of first instance held that Wupeng Company failed to provide evidence proving that Fangfang Company's issuance of the Termination Letter constituted an invalid act, and thus ruled against Wupeng Company's claim.

After the first instance court ruled against the lawsuit, Wu Peng Company was very anxious. If Fangfang Company's termination of the contract takes effect, it means that their company's huge investment of 28 million yuan will be destroyed. Therefore, Wu Peng Company must salvage the situation. Subsequently, Wu Peng Company consulted multiple law firms and after multiple inquiries, learned that the Wang Tengfeng literary rights litigation team of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has the ability to revive difficult and complex cases. After the interview, they firmly entrusted Wang Tengfeng's literary and artistic rights litigation team to file an appeal on their behalf.

After accepting the commission of Wu Peng Company, lawyers Wang Tengfeng and Cao Guanghui from the Wang Tengfeng Literary Rights Protection Litigation Team conducted in-depth analysis of the first instance judgment and existing evidence. Firstly, they believe that the application of the law in the first instance judgment was incorrect. In the first instance, Wu Peng Company filed a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of Fangfang Company's "Termination of Cooperation Letter" to terminate the contract, while the first instance judgment was on whether the issuance of the "Termination of Cooperation Letter" was a civil act. Obviously, the judgment was not requested and violated the procedure; Secondly, the first instance court found that Wu Peng Company's failure to submit evidence to prove the invalidity of Fangfang Company's issuance of the "Termination of Cooperation Letter" to terminate the contract was a factual error.

In court, the respondent Fangfang Company proposed two grounds for terminating the contract: one is that the funds were disconnected for one month; Secondly, the cooperation agreement between Fangfang Company and the third-party Pingwu Company has expired and there is no longer a basis for cooperation. The Wang Tengfeng literary and artistic rights litigation team has made a strong rebuttal, using existing evidence to fully demonstrate that: firstly, Wu Peng Company has strictly fulfilled its obligations and there is no situation of fund rupture as claimed by Fangfang Company, which does not comply with the agreement or statutory termination. Secondly, the cooperation period between Fangfang Company and Pingwu Company has been extended until 2021, and there is no situation where the contract cannot be fulfilled as stated in the "Termination of Cooperation Letter".

Finally, the second instance court accepted the opinion of Wang Tengfeng's artistic rights protection litigation team and ruled in favor of Wu Peng Company. Fangfang Company's issuance of a "Termination of Cooperation Letter" to Wu Peng Company to terminate the contract is invalid. Wupeng Company has emerged from the brink of collapse, completely salvaging the first instance failure and preventing the 28 million investment from going down the drain.