Zhonghaitou owed huge rent arrears, and Zhiming lawyers successfully defended rights.
Plaintiff Ms. Ma X purchased the property in question from XX Company in April 2011. Since that company had already signed a five-year lease agreement with the defendant, Zhonghai Investment Management Co., Ltd., in July 2010, under the principle of "sale does not break lease," Plaintiff Ms. Ma X succeeded to the rights and obligations of the original lessor, XX Company, including the low rent level formed due to historical reasons. However, the defendant, Zhonghai Investment Management Co., Ltd., acted in bad faith by repeatedly defaulting on rent payments. Seeking to terminate the contract, Plaintiff Ms. Ma X approached Zhiming Law Firm in early 2012 and retained Zhiming lawyers and Attorney Cao Guanghui as litigation representatives to sue Zhonghai Investment Management Co., Ltd., which held a dominant position.
At the outset of the lawsuit, the defendant repeatedly engaged in correspondence with the plaintiff over issues such as invoices, attempting to extract evidence favorable to their case. Thanks to the proper handling by the plaintiff's attorney, the defendant ultimately gained nothing. During the first-instance trial, the defendant objected to the termination of the contract, citing reasons such as substantial investment in renovations and that the breach did not warrant termination, but the court rejected these arguments and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Ms. Ma X. The defendant appealed, and in the second-instance hearing, resorted to arguments about standard-form contracts and that continued performance would better uphold transactional stability. In response, the plaintiff's attorney pointed out that the plaintiff was exercising a contractual right to terminate, not a statutory right, and that the conditions for contractual termination could be less stringent than those for statutory termination, as contracts must be strictly adhered to. In this case, the defendant's overdue rent payments were clearly evidenced and fully met the contractual conditions for termination, so the contract should be lawfully terminated, and any losses incurred by the defendant due to their breach should be borne by themselves. In October 2012, the second-instance court upheld the first-instance judgment, supporting the plaintiff Ma X's claims: termination of the contract, forfeiture of the lease deposit, and return of the premises.
Attorney Suo Zhiming and Attorney Cao Guanghui, through their high-quality and efficient litigation services and forceful courtroom advocacy, not only safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of their clients but also served to enlighten the public on the importance of honoring contracts.
Zhiming Office
