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 losing the first-instance verdict, Wupeng Company was extremely anxious, as the effectiveness of Fangfang Company's contract termination would mean the loss of its 28 million yuan investment. Therefore, Wupeng Company had to reverse the defeat. Subsequently, Wupeng Company consulted several law firms and learned through extensive inquiries that the Wang Tengfeng Artistic Litigation Team of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm had the ability to revive difficult and complex cases. After a face-to-face meeting, they firmly entrusted the Wang Tengfeng Artistic Litigation Team to handle their appeal.

Upon accepting Wupeng Company's entrustment, lawyers Wang Tengfeng and Cao Guanghui of the Wang Tengfeng Artistic Litigation Team conducted an in-depth analysis of the first-instance judgment and existing evidence. First, they believed that the first-instance judgment applied the law incorrectly. In the first instance, Wupeng Company's claim was to confirm that Fangfang Company's act of terminating the contract via the Termination Letter was invalid, but the court ruled on whether the issuance of the Termination Letter constituted a civil act, which clearly deviated from the claim and violated procedural rules. Second, the first-instance court's finding that Wupeng Company failed to submit evidence proving the invalidity of Fangfang Company's Termination Letter was a factual error.

In court, the appellee Fangfang Company cited two grounds for terminating the contract: first, a one-month funding chain break; second, the expiration of the cooperation agreement between Fangfang Company and the third party, Pingwu Company, meaning no basis for cooperation remained. The Wang Tengfeng Artistic Litigation Team forcefully refuted these claims, using existing evidence to fully demonstrate: first, that Wupeng Company had strictly fulfilled its obligations, and there was no funding chain break as alleged by Fangfang Company, thus not meeting the conditions for contractual or statutory termination. Second, the cooperation period between Fangfang Company and Pingwu Company had been extended to 2021, so there was no situation of contract non-performance as stated in the Termination Letter.

Finally, the court of second instance accepted the opinion of Wang Tengfeng's art litigation team, ruling in favor of Wupeng Company, and declaring that Fangfang Company's issuance of the "Termination of Cooperation Letter" to terminate the contract was invalid. Wupeng Company turned the tide, completely reversing the first-instance defeat, preventing its 28 million yuan investment from going down the drain.