Engineering encounters unscrupulous developer, lawyer sues to recover project payment
In December 2010, Shenzhen Jishui Company signed the "Landscape Fountain Contract" and the "Hot Spring Water Supply Contract" with a developer in Guangxi, stipulating that project payments would be made within two months after settlement. Shortly thereafter, the hot spring water reheating and supply project passed final inspection and was accepted, but the two companies soon became embroiled in a dispute and suspended their cooperation. After negotiations broke down, the two parties settled the project payment at 157.3 yuan in early March 2013. Despite repeated demands from Jishui Company, the developer still owed 270,000 yuan of the amount. As a result, Jishui Company entrusted the legal team led by Wang Tengfeng from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to file a lawsuit against the developer. The lead lawyer at Zhiming assigned team attorney Cao Guanghui to specifically follow up on the case.
After the lawsuit was filed, the developer's lawyer argued to the court that the project had not undergone a "final" settlement. Since the fountain constructed by Jishui Company had not undergone final commissioning and acceptance, the previous settlement was merely a "preliminary settlement." Additionally, the contract contained a clause stipulating that "maintenance costs incurred without commissioning and acceptance shall be deducted from the project payment." Therefore, Jishui Company was also required to pay maintenance fees to the developer.
In response to the developer's evasive arguments, the guiding opinion provided by Attorney Zhiming firmly refutes the above-mentioned "fallacies": First, the premise for the existence of maintenance fees is based on the full performance of the contract. However, since both parties to the project in question did not complete performance as agreed and instead settled midway, there is no issue of maintenance fees. Second, the construction project was essentially completed, and the results had already been delivered to the developer. However, because both parties terminated the contract performance midway and conducted a settlement, there is consequently no situation of "the project lacking a final settlement." In summary, although this case does not involve a project completion settlement, based on the contract clause agreed upon by both parties requiring payment of project funds within two months after settlement, Jishui Company is fully justified in claiming that the developer should, in accordance with the contract, pay all project funds within two months after the settlement is completed, along with additional interest of 34,000 yuan arising from the overdue payment.
Guided by the legal advice of Attorney Zhiming, attorneys Cao Guanghui and trainee lawyer Li Lulu from the Zhiming legal team engaged in a fierce courtroom battle against the developer's counsel in both the first and second instance trials, yielding no ground. They ultimately persuaded the judges at both levels to set aside distractions and fully support and adopt the reasonable claims put forth by the Zhiming legal team. In the end, the case concluded with Jishui Company achieving a complete victory in the first instance, and after the developer appealed, the second instance court upheld the first instance judgment in their favor.
