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 Household Contract" with a developer in Guangxi, agreeing to pay the project fees within two months after settlement. Shortly after, the completion and acceptance of the hot spring water reheating household project was qualified, but the cooperation between the two companies was suspended due to a dispute. After the negotiations broke down, both parties settled the project payment of 157.3 yuan in early March 2013. After multiple reminders from Jishui Company, the developer still owes 270000 yuan. Therefore, Jishui Company has entrusted the legal team of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to sue the developer on its behalf. Lawyer Zhiming assigned team lawyer Cao Guanghui to specifically follow up on this 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.