Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Zhejiang Zhongtai Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. Address: No.51,Chun 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,No. 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 Zotye Lighting Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zotye 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 in accordance with the law and the trial was held in public. Qiu Yuqing, the entrusted agent of Zotye Company, Tian Yudong, the entrusted agent of Beijing Amethyst Solar Energy Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Amethyst Solar Energy Company), Sun Huanhua, the entrusted agent of Philips Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Philips Company), and Lu Fei, the entrusted agent of the third party, attended the proceedings in court. The case has now been closed.
Amethyst Optical Energy Company sued the court of first instance: On April 9, 2007, Amethyst Optical Energy Company signed a lease contract with Zhongtai Company and Philips Company, stipulating that Zhongtai Company would lease Philips lamps from Amethyst Optical Energy 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 2,365,438+0,000 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 6, 2008 +07. The contract stipulates the payment method: "Party A will pay all the money after accepting the leased property" and stipulates that Philips will cooperate with Zotye Company to return the leased property after the lease expires. Amethyst Company fulfilled its obligation to deliver the leased property 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, Zotye Company failed to fulfill its obligation to return the leased property, continued to use the leased property, and formed 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, Zijingguang Company repeatedly urged it to be unsuccessful. On May 201April 9, Amethyst Company issued the Notice of Dissolving the Lease Contract to Zotye Company, dissolving the open-ended lease contract between the two parties, and returning the leased property within a time limit and paying the use fee, but Zotye Company still ignored it. Therefore, Amethyst sued the court, claiming: 1, confirming that the non-scheduled 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 16797 yuan from September 6, 2008 to May 6, 2004, and demand that it be paid until the date when Zhongtai Company actually returns the leased property; 3. Zotye Company was ordered to compensate Amethyst Guang Zhi Company for the loss of 200,000 yuan of lamps that could not be returned; 4. Zotye Company shall bear the legal costs of this case.
Zotye Company argued in the court of first instance: 1. The purpose of signing the contract 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. Zotye 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 expenses. 2. The leased property is provided by Philips. According to the contract, Philips should assist in returning the lamps. After being notified by Zotye for many times, Amethyst and Philips failed to complete the on-site delivery of lamps, and Amethyst and Philips should bear their own responsibilities. 3. There is no basis for Amethyst Company to claim compensation for lamps from Zhongtai Company. Because lamps are still in China Agricultural University, Zhongtai Company disagrees with Amethyst 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 Lighting Company and Zhongtai Company, which cannot prove that the above two companies supply lamps to China Agricultural University, and China Agricultural University should not be the party; 2. China Agricultural University has nothing to do with Amethyst Company and Zotye Company, and should not be involved in disputes between the two parties. The authenticity of the contractual relationship between Amethyst Company and Zotye Company cannot be confirmed; 3. China Agricultural University has no connection with Ziguang 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 pointed to actually existed. Even if both parties did fulfill the contract and deliver the lamps, they could not confirm that the lamps they delivered were those of the Olympic Wrestling Hall.
The court of first instance found through trial that on April 9, 2007, Amethyst Lighting Company (Party B) signed a Lease Contract with Hangzhou Zotye Lighting Group Co., Ltd. (renamed Zotye Company on 201.1.02) (Party A) and Philips Company (Party C), and Party A was forced to hold a wrestling match for the Olympic Games. Leased use: Lighting for the wrestling hall of the 2008 Olympic Games. Lease term: from the time when Party A takes over the leased property to the end of the 2008 Beijing Olympic and Paralympic Games (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 end of the 2008 Beijing Olympic and Paralympic Games and Party B's on-site acceptance.
After the signing of the contract, Amethyst delivered and installed the lamps to Zotye, and Zotye paid Amethyst rent of 23 1000 yuan during the lease period. However, after the lease period ended, Zotye failed to return the lamps to Amethyst.
In the lawsuit, Amethyst provided the Notice of Dissolving the Lease Contract which it sent to Zotye Company on May 6, 2065438, saying that Zotye Company raised an objection on that day, indicating that it had not received it. Therefore, Amethyst proposed to Zotye Company to dissolve the lease contract on August 2, 2065438. China Agricultural University said that it could not confirm whether the lamps installed in the Olympic Wrestling Gymnasium were the leased property stipulated in the contract between Amethyst and Zhongtai, so Amethyst asked Zhongtai to compensate the leased property. In the lawsuit, Amethyst Company and Zotye Company reached an agreement on the market value of the leased property of 200,000 yuan.
Zotye Company provided the Letter of Acceptance, which proved that the disputed leased property was supplied by Philips Company to the Olympic Wrestling Hall, and Zotye Company only established the lease relationship on its behalf. Ziguang Company believes that the evidence has nothing to do with this case and disagrees with its authenticity. Philips denies that the evidence is relevant to this case.
The court of first instance found that the above facts were supported by evidence materials such as statements of the parties, lease contracts and customs declarations.
The court of first instance ruled that the lease contract signed by Amethyst, Zotye and Philips was a manifestation of the true intention of the three parties and did not violate the mandatory provisions of relevant laws and administrative regulations, so the contract was legal and valid. After signing the contract, Amethyst 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 did not return the lamps and continue to use them, and Amethyst Guang Zhi Company did not raise any objection, so the three parties formed an indefinite lease contract. Because Zotye Company has not paid the lamp usage fee, Amethyst Guang Zhi Company now requests to cancel the tripartite non-scheduled lease contract and Zotye Company will pay the lamp usage fee, which has factual and legal basis and should be supported. As Zotye Company indicated that it had not received the notice of contract termination from Amethyst Company, the date when Amethyst Company proposed to terminate the contract to Zotye Company on August 20, 20041,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 have the obligation to pay the use fee; Zotye Company claimed that the lamps were actually used by China Agricultural University, but China Agricultural University disagreed. Zotye Company did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the fact that the lamps were used by China Agricultural University. Therefore, Zotye Company's defense that Philips should share the responsibility and China Agricultural University should pay the use fee was not considered by the court. Since the lamps cannot be returned, it is also in compliance with the law for Amethyst Lighting Company to sue Zotye Company for compensation for the loss of lamps. 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 People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law, the judgment is as follows: 1. Confirm that the unscheduled lease agreement reached by Beijing Amethyst Guang Zhi 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. paid 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).
Zotye Company refused to accept the judgment of the court of first instance and appealed to our court. The appeal request is: annulling the original judgment, remanding for retrial or changing 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. Two, the original judgment found that the litigation lease contract formed an indefinite lease contract is an applicable legal error. Third, the original judgment was wrong to compensate 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 found 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 Zotye's appeal, it said that the court of first instance found 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 Zotye 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 jointly found 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 the court's interpretation, Amethyst Company filed a change lawsuit. When the court of first instance heard the case, the appellant made it clear that there was no need to increase the time limit for adducing evidence. The appellant asked for the addition of a third person during the first trial, 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, so there is no problem of high rental fee 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 Zotye Company and uphold the original judgment.
Philips obeyed the judgment of the court of first instance and defended Zotye's appeal, saying that the facts of the first instance judgment were clear and the applicable law was correct. Philips does not recognize the facts and reasons related to Philips stated in Zotye's appeal. In the appeal, it was considered that Philips was the supplier of lamps for the Olympic wrestling hall, which was inaccurate. Philips is only a manufacturer, and has not established a supply relationship with 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 the original opinion of Philips. Zotye Company claimed in the appeal that the performance of the lease contract involved was restricted by Philips, which refused to recognize it. During the trial of the court of first instance, the appellant did not provide evidence of handing over the lamps with China Agricultural University. China Agricultural University does not recognize this fact, so it is correct for the court of first instance not to make a determination. 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.
Our court found through trial that the facts ascertained by the court of first instance were true and confirmed. In the second trial, Zotye Company submitted a set of evidences to prove that the builder of the Olympic Wrestling Hall was Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., and in the bidding for the lamps used in the Olympic Wrestling Hall, Philips Company bid and won the bid, and Philips Company authorized Beijing Century Zotye Lighting Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Zotye Company) to sign and perform the contract with Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. Since then, Beijing Zhongtai Company has signed a contract with Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., and the rented lamps are basically the same as those of Zhongtai Company and Amethyst Lighting 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. Ziguang company provides lamps, and Zhongtai company pays rent. The contract period is the same as that of Beijing Zhongtai Company and Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd., and both companies agree to lease until the end of the Paralympic Games. After the Paralympics, Beijing Zhongtai Company asked Beijing Beiguo Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. for lamps but failed. Amethyst Company failed to submit the formalities of asking Zotye 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 Lighting Company determined that the value of the lamps it purchased was 56 1000 yuan in the original trial. In the original trial, Guang Zhi Amethyst Company issued a payment slip, which proved that it received the rental fee of RMB 2,365,438+RMB 0,000 on April 20, 2007.
The above facts are supported by the statements of the parties during the second trial and the evidence submitted by Zhongtai Company in the second trial.
We believe that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether there is any legal responsibility for the irregular lease relationship and the failure to return the leased property in time after the lease contract expires.
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 Zotye Company has not actually occupied the leased property. When the lease contract is terminated, there is no de facto lease relationship between Amethyst and Zotye. 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 term has no factual basis, so 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, Zotye 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 loss caused by amethyst Guang Zhi's failure to recover the leased property in time should be the difference between the market value of the leased lamps at that time and the rental fee already charged, as well as the loan interest for the same period from the date when the leased property should be recovered. Because Zotye Company failed to return the leased property to Amethyst Company in time as agreed, it should bear the main responsibility for the losses of Amethyst Company, and Philips Company failed to actively perform its obligation of assistance and also assumed certain responsibilities for the losses of Amethyst Company. Amethyst Lighting Company's failure to urge the rental of lamps in time is an effective fault to prevent the loss from expanding, and it should also bear certain responsibilities. 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. Zhongtai Company has the right to take away the rented lamps from the Olympic Wrestling Hall after compensating Amethyst Company for its losses, and this case will not be handled because it is not within the scope of this lawsuit.
To sum up, according to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 119, Articles 235 and 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 Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. for 264,000 yuan and paid interest (from September 18, 2008 to the date of payment, 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 date of payment, 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 of the second instance 1485 1 Yuan 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. shall bear 35 1 1 Yuan (paid), and Philips Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. shall bear 439 yuan (paid after this judgment takes effect)
This is the final judgment.
Presiding judge Zhang Jiefang
Acting Judge Liu Lei
Acting Judge Xia Genhui
201April 5 10
Bookkeeper Liu Fangfang