Appellant (defendant in the original trial) Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd., whose domicile is No.51Chun Qing East Road, Jianggan District, Hangzhou.
Legal Representative Cheng Bingxian, executive director.
Authorized Agent: Zhang Peng, male, born on1October 20th, 1974.
Entrusted agent Qiu Yuqing, male, born on1October 22nd, 1975.
Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial) Beijing Amethyst Guang Zhi Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd., located in the courtyard of Yanzhu Hospital, Minute Temple, Fengtai District, Beijing.
Legal Representative: Li Yueqi, board chairman.
Authorized Agent: Tian Yudong, lawyer of Jiangsu Ai Xin Law Firm.
The defendant in the original trial, Philips Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., lives on the second floor of Building 6, Hu Yi Road 1805, Ma Lu Town, Jiading District, Shanghai.
Legal representative: JOSEPHINSHEN-CHUANSU, chairman of the board.
Authorized Agent: Sun Huanhua, lawyer of Beijing Yingke Law Firm.
The third person, China Agricultural University, lives at No.2 Yuanmingyuan West Road, Haidian District, Beijing.
Legal Representative: Ke Bingsheng, president.
Authorized Agent: Lu Fei, lawyer of Beijing Peng Kai Law Firm.
The appellant Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongtai Company) refused to accept the civil judgment of Haidian District People's Court (20 14) Hai Min Zi Chu Di 16847, and appealed to our court. After the court accepted the case, a collegiate bench was formed according to law and the trial was held in public. Qiu Yuqing, the attorney of the appellant Zhongtai Company, Tian Yudong, the attorney of the appellee Beijing Amethyst Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Amethyst Company), Sun Huanhua, the attorney of Philips Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Philips Company), and Lu Fei, the attorney of the third party, attended the proceedings. The case has now been closed.
Amethyst sued the court of first instance: On April 9, 2007, Amethyst signed a lease contract with Zhongtai Company and Philips Company, stipulating that Zhongtai Company would lease Philips lamps from Amethyst Company for the 2008 Olympic Wrestling Hall of China Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as the Olympic Wrestling Hall), and stipulated that Zhongtai Company would pay the total contract rent of 23 1000 yuan. The lease term shall be from the time when Zhongtai Company takes over the leased property to the end of the 2008 Beijing Olympic and Paralympic Games, that is, September 17, 2008. The contract stipulates the payment method: "Party A will pay the full amount after accepting the leased property", and also stipulates that Philips will cooperate with Zhongtai Company to return the leased property after the lease expires. Amethyst Company fulfilled its obligation to deliver the leased house to Zhongtai Company as agreed, and Zhongtai Company paid the rent of 23 1000 yuan during the contract period. After the expiration of the contract, Zhongtai Company failed to fulfill its obligation to return the leased property and continued to use the leased property, thus forming an indefinite lease contract according to law. Since Zhongtai Company has been in arrears in paying the rent since September 18, 2008, the actual use fee is 9 16797 yuan. During this period, Amethyst Company repeatedly urged it to be unsuccessful. 20 14 19 in may, amethyst light company issued a notice of canceling the lease contract to zhongtai company, canceling the non-fixed lease contract between the two parties, returning the leased property within a time limit and paying the use fee, but zhongtai company still ignored it. Therefore, Amethyst sued the court, claiming: 1, confirming that the unscheduled lease contract between Amethyst and Zotye and Philips was terminated in August, 20 14. 2. To order Zhongtai Company to pay Amethyst Guang Zhi Company the rental fee of 9 1 6797 yuan from September 2008 to May 20041day, and demand that it be paid until the date when Zhongtai Company actually returns the leased property; 3. It ordered Zhongtai Company to compensate Amethyst Guang Zhi Company for the loss of 200,000 yuan of lamps that could not be returned; 4. Zhongtai Company shall bear the legal costs of this case.
Zhongtai Company argued in the court of first instance: 1. The purpose of the contract signed between Zhongtai Company and Zijingguang Company has been realized, and the lease relationship between the two parties will be terminated at the expiration of the agreed period. Zhongtai company is not the manager of the Olympic wrestling hall, so there is no problem in using the leased property and there is no need to bear the cost; 2. The leased property is provided by Philips. According to the contract, Philips should assist in returning the lamps. After repeated notices from Zotye, Amethyst and Philips failed to complete the on-site delivery of lamps, and Amethyst and Philips should bear the responsibility themselves. 3. There is no basis for Amethyst Lamp Company to claim compensation from Zhongtai Company, because the lamps are still in China Agricultural University, so Zhongtai Company disagrees with Amethyst Lamp Company's claim.
Philips argued in the court of first instance that regarding Amethyst's claim to terminate the contract, Philips believed that the lease contract in this case constituted an indefinite lease. Amethyst has the right to terminate the indefinite lease contract, and Philips has no objection. Since Amethyst's other claims are not directed at Philips, Philips does not express its opinions.
China Agricultural University stated in the court of first instance: 1, China Agricultural University has no lease relationship with Amethyst Lamp Company and Zhongtai Company, which cannot prove that the two companies supply lamps to China Agricultural University, and China Agricultural University should not be a party; 2. China Agricultural University has nothing to do with Amethyst Company and Zhongtai Company, and should not be involved in disputes between the two parties. The authenticity of the contractual relationship between Amethyst Company and Zhongtai Company cannot be confirmed; 3. China Agricultural University has no connection with Amethyst Company and Zhongtai Company. It cannot be confirmed that Amethyst Company actually delivered the lamps after signing the lease contract with Zotye Company, nor can it be confirmed that the lamps it refers to actually exist. Even if the two parties did fulfill the contract and delivered the lamps, they could not confirm that the lamps they delivered were the lamps of the Olympic wrestling hall.
The court of first instance found through trial that on April 9, 2007, Amethyst Lamp Company (Party B) signed a lease contract with Hangzhou Zhongtai Lighting Group Co., Ltd. (20 1 1. 1.02 was renamed as Zhongtai Company) (Party A) and Philips Company (Party C), and Party A conducted compulsory wrestling for the Olympic Games. Rental purposes: used for lighting the wrestling hall of the 2008 Olympic Games. Lease term: from the date when Party A receives the leased house to the end of the 2008 Beijing Olympic and Paralympic Games (65438 on September 7, 2008). During the lease period, the packaging of the leased property shall be kept by Party B. Party C shall be responsible for assisting Party A to return the leased property (excluding packaging) to Party B after the 2008 Beijing Olympic and Paralympic Games are over and Party B's on-site acceptance is qualified.
After signing the contract, Amethyst Lamp Company delivered and installed the lamps to Zhongtai Company, and Zhongtai Company paid Amethyst Lamp Company the rental of 23 1000 yuan during the lease period. However, after the lease period, Zotye Company failed to return the lamps to Amethyst Lamp Company.
In the lawsuit, Amethyst provided the Notice of Dissolving the Lease Contract that it sent to Zhongtai Company on May 6, 2065438, saying that Zhongtai Company raised an objection on that day, saying that it had not received it, so Amethyst proposed to Zhongtai Company to dissolve the lease contract on August 2, 2065438. China Agricultural University said that it was impossible to confirm whether the lamps installed in the Olympic wrestling hall were leased by Amethyst Company and Zhongtai Company, so Amethyst Company asked Zhongtai Company to compensate the leased property. In the lawsuit, Amethyst Company and Zhongtai Company reached an agreement on the market value of the leased property of 200,000 yuan.
Zhongtai Company provided the bid-winning notice, which proves that the disputed leased property was provided by Philips to the Olympic Wrestling Hall, and Zhongtai Company only established the lease relationship on its behalf. Amethyst believes that the evidence has nothing to do with this case and disagrees with its authenticity. Philips denied the relevance of the evidence to this case.
The court of first instance found that the above facts were supported by the parties' statements, lease contracts, customs declarations and other evidential materials.
The court of first instance ruled that the lease contract signed by Zijingguang Company, Zotye Company and Philips Company is the true expression of the three parties and does not violate the mandatory provisions of relevant laws and administrative regulations, so the contract is legal and valid. After signing the contract, Amethyst Lamp Company fulfilled its contractual obligations, delivered the lamps, and Zotye Company also paid the rent during the lease period. After the expiration of the contract, Zotye Company failed to return the lamps and continue to use them, and Amethyst Guang Zhi Company raised no objection. The three parties have formed an indefinite lease contract. Since Zhongtai Company has not paid the lamp usage fee, Amethyst Guang Zhi Company now requests to cancel the tripartite non-scheduled lease contract and let Zhongtai Company pay the lamp usage fee, which has factual and legal basis and should be supported. As Zhongtai Company indicated that it had not received the notice of contract termination from Amethyst Company, the date of contract termination was based on August 20, 2004/KLOC-0, and the lamp usage fee was also calculated to this date. The usage fee standard is calculated with reference to the amount of lamp rental fee determined by the three parties when signing the contract. In the tripartite lease contract, Philips only has the obligation to assist, so Philips does not bear the obligation to pay the use fee; Zhongtai Company claimed that the lamps were actually used by China Agricultural University, but China Agricultural University disagreed. Zhongtai Company did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the fact that the lamps were used by China Agricultural University. Therefore, China-Thailand Company's defense that Philips Company should bear the responsibility and China Agricultural University should pay the use fee was not considered by the court. As the lamps can't be returned, Amethyst Company sued Zhongtai Company for compensation for the loss of lamps, which is also in compliance with the law. In the lawsuit, Amethyst and Zotye reached an agreement on the present value of lamps, and the court did not raise any objection, so as to determine the amount that Zotye should compensate Amethyst. To sum up, according to the provisions of Articles 96, 107 and 236 of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law, the judgment is as follows: 1 Confirmed that the indefinite lease agreement reached by Beijing Zijingguang Technology Development Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. and Philips Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. was terminated on August 2, 20 14; 2. Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. shall pay 947,394 yuan to Beijing Amethyst Guang Zhi Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. from September 18 to August 2 1 4, 2008; 3. Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. shall compensate Beijing Amethyst Guang Zhi Technology Development Co., Ltd. for 200,000 yuan of lamps within seven days after this judgment comes into effect. If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).
Zhongtai Company refused to accept the judgment of the court of first instance and appealed to our court. The appeal request is: cancel the original judgment, send it back for retrial or change the judgment according to law to reject the appellee's original claim. The grounds for appeal are as follows: 1. The original judgment failed to determine that the leased lamps in this case were leased and installed by Amethyst Lighting Company for the Olympic Wrestling Hall, and the leased property was still used by China Agricultural University. Second, the original judgment found that the litigation lease contract formed an indefinite lease contract is an error of applicable law. Third, the original judgment was wrong to make compensation for the "lamps" only because the third party claimed that it could not confirm that the lamps had been returned without losing them. Four, the original judgment made the appellant to pay the "lamp use fee" judgment error. 5. The court of first instance agreed that the appellee changed the claim without authorization, and disagreed with the appellant's application for adding a third person and supplementing evidence, which seriously violated legal procedures. Sixth, the original judgment ordered that the huge "lamp use fee" obviously exceeded the value of lamps, which violated the judicial spirit of fairness and justice.
Amethyst Company obeyed the judgment of the court of first instance. In response to the appeal of Zhongtai Company, the court of first instance claimed that the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct, requested to maintain the judgment of first instance and rejected the appellant's appeal. The court of first instance found that there was insufficient evidence for China Agricultural University to use lamps. There is no contractual relationship between China Agricultural University and the appellee. As Zhongtai Company fails to return the lamps on schedule, it shall pay the rent according to the irregular lease contract. The appellant invoked Article 78 of the Contract Law to apply legal errors. Because the court of first instance found that the appellant could not return the leased property, and both parties agreed that the residual value of the disputed lamps was 200,000 yuan, the appellee changed the claim for returning the lamps to the residual value of the leased property. Based on this, Amethyst Company filed a change lawsuit after being explained by the court. When the court of first instance heard the case, the appellant made it clear that there was no need to extend the time limit for adducing evidence. The appellant asked for the addition of a third person in the first instance, which we think is irrelevant to this case. Therefore, the trial procedure in this case is not illegal. The actual value of lamps and lanterns is not necessarily related to the rental value, and there is no problem that the rental fee is too high as mentioned by the appellant. Generally speaking, the court of first instance found that the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct. Request the court to reject the appeal of Zhongtai Company and uphold the original judgment.
Philips obeyed the judgment of the court of first instance and defended the appeal of Zhongtai Company, saying that the facts of the first instance judgment were clear and the applicable law was correct. The facts and reasons related to Philips stated in the appeal of Zhongtai Company are not recognized by Philips Company. In the appeal, it is considered that Philips is the supplier of lamps in the Olympic wrestling hall, which is inaccurate. Philips is only a manufacturer, and has not established a supply relationship with the actual lamp users and appellants, so it is not a supplier. The appellant said that Philips did not deny its obligations as a party to the lease contract, which was inconsistent with Philips' original opinion. In the appeal, Zhongtai Company claimed that the performance of the lease contract involved was restricted by Philips, which was not recognized. In the trial of the court of first instance, the appellant did not provide any evidence of handover or delivery of lamps with China Agricultural University. China Agricultural University did not admit this fact, so the court of first instance did not make a determination that it was correct. Issues related to the appellant and the actual users of lamps can be dealt with separately.
China Agricultural University obeyed the judgment of the court of first instance and stated that there was no contractual relationship between China Agricultural University and the appellant in this case. There is no evidence that China Agricultural University is still using the lamps in dispute in this case.
It was found through trial that the facts ascertained by the court of first instance were true and confirmed. In the second trial, Zhongtai Company submitted a set of evidences to prove that the builder of the Olympic Wrestling Gymnasium was Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., and in the bidding for lamps for the Olympic Wrestling Gymnasium, Philips Company bid and won the bid. Philips Company authorized Beijing Century Zhongtai Lighting Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Zhongtai Company) to sign and perform the contract with Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., and then Beijing Zhongtai Company signed a contract with Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., and the leased lamps were basically the same as those of Zhongtai Company and Amethyst Lamp Company in this case. During the performance of this lease, the number of lamps has increased, and the number and specific model of lamps finally signed are consistent with this case. Beijing Zhongtai Company entrusts Zhongtai Company to sign a lease contract with Amethyst Company on its behalf to fulfill the lessor's obligation to provide lamps for the Olympic wrestling tube. Amethyst lamp company provides lamps, and Zhongtai company pays the rent. The contract period is the same as that of Beijing Zhongtai Company and Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., and both parties agree to lease it until the end of the Paralympic Games. After the Paralympics, Beijing Zhongtai Company asked Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. for lamps but failed. In Amethyst Company, it failed to submit the formalities of asking Zhongtai Company for lamps. At present, China Agricultural University has failed to prove that the lamps in the gymnasium of China Agricultural University have changed after the Olympic Games. Amethyst Lamp Company determined that the value of the lamps it purchased was 56 1000 yuan at the time of the original trial and prosecution. In the original trial, Amethyst Guang Zhi Company issued a payment slip, which proved that it received the lease fee of RMB 2,365,438+RMB 0,000 on April 20, 2007.
The above facts are supported by the statements of both parties during the second trial and the evidence submitted by Zhongtai Company in the second trial.
The court held that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether there is an irregular lease relationship between the two parties after the expiration of the lease contract in this case and the legal responsibility for not returning the leased property in time.
Article 236 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that if the lessee continues to use the leased property at the expiration of the lease term and the lessor does not raise any objection, the original lease contract will remain valid, but the lease term is indefinite. In this case, after the lease contract expires, the Olympic wrestling hall will use the leased lamps during the Olympic Games, and Amethyst will charge the lease fee agreed in the contract. The purpose of the contract has been achieved, and Zhongtai Company has not actually occupied the leased property. When the lease contract is terminated, there is no de facto lease relationship between Amethyst and Zhongtai. The court of first instance found that there was an error in the non-standard lease relationship between the two parties, and our court corrected it. Amethyst Company's request to terminate the lease contract and ask Zhongtai Company to pay the use fee of the leased property after the expiration of the lease period is unfounded, and our hospital will not support it.
Article 235 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that the lessee shall return the leased property at the expiration of the lease term. In this case, after the lease contract expired, Zhongtai Company failed to return the leased property to Zijingguang Company in time for several years, and Zijingguang Company no longer demanded the return of the leased property and demanded compensation for the losses, which was justified and allowed by our court. The losses caused by Amethyst Guang Zhi's failure to recover the leased property in time are the difference between the market value of the leased lamps at that time and the rental fee already charged, and the loan interest for the same period from the date when the leased property should be recovered. Because Zhongtai Company failed to return the leased property to Amethyst Company in time as agreed, it should bear the main responsibility for the loss of Amethyst Company, and Philips Company failed to actively perform its obligation of assistance and was also partly responsible for the loss of Amethyst Company. Amethyst lamp company failed to urge the rental of lamps in time, which failed to effectively prevent the loss from expanding and should also bear part of the responsibility. The specific responsibilities of Zhongtai Company, Philips Company and Amethyst Company are determined by our institute according to their respective contractual responsibilities and fault conditions. After compensating Amethyst for its losses, Zotye has the right to take away the rented lamps from the Olympic Wrestling Hall, and this case will not be handled because it is not within the scope of this lawsuit.
To sum up, according to the first paragraph of Article 119, Article 235 and Article 236 of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law and Item (2) of the first paragraph of Article 170 of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Civil Procedure Law, the judgment is as follows:
1. Cancel the civil judgment (20 14) of Haidian District People's Court of Beijing. 16847;
2. The lease contract signed by Beijing Zijingguang Technology Development Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. and Philips Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. was terminated on September 7, 2008;
3. Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. compensated Beijing Amethyst Guang Zhi Technology Development Co., Ltd. for 264,000 yuan, and paid interest (from September 18, 2008 to the payment date, calculated according to the loan interest rate of the People's Bank of China for the same period);
4. Philips Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. compensated Beijing Amethyst Guang Zhi Technology Development Co., Ltd. for 33,000 yuan, and paid interest (from September 18, 2008 to the payment date, calculated according to the loan interest rate of the People's Bank of China for the same period);
Verb (abbreviation of verb) rejects other claims of Beijing Zijingguang Technology Development Co., Ltd. ..
The acceptance fee for the first-instance case is 1485 1 yuan, of which 1090 1 yuan has been paid by Beijing amethyst Optical Technology Development Co., Ltd. and 351yuan has been paid by Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. (paid within seven days after this judgment takes effect).
The acceptance fee for the second instance case is 1485 1 yuan, which shall be borne by Beijing Amethyst Guang Zhi Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (paid within seven days after this judgment takes effect), Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. 35 1 1 yuan (paid) and Philips Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 439 yuan (paid).
This is the final judgment.
Presiding judge Zhang Jiefang
Acting Judge Liu Lei
Acting Judge Xia Genhui
201April 5 10
Bookkeeper Liu Fangfang