Asian Heart Network (Reporter Dongmei Yu) Shihezi regiment a leading company in the name of the unit rental unit after spending huge amount of entertainment expenses off against the rent. The leader stepped down after nearly 50,000 meals who pays? The leadership behavior is the official conduct or personal behavior? This controversy by two People's Court, with the final outcome.
2006 November, Shihezi people from Hua Mu Yong took over at a restaurant. This restaurant is home ownership market a company belonging to the regiment all in Shihezi.
before, Hua worked with the company signed a rental contract, agreed: Li Hua rental company dressing rooms, a term of five years from December 2005 to November 2010 only, rents annually 1,cheap beats by dre.5 million.
the rental contract, usually by the company commander Qing signed and stamped with the seal of the company.
Li Hua restaurant business for nearly a year, at the restaurant in November 2006 transferred to the Mu Yong. The two sides agreed in the transfer agreement, Li Hua and follow the operating period of the lease company. The company commander Chang-ching also signed the agreement on the transfer and indicate,
Mu Yong operating a restaurant during the celebration to the company name often serve meals in the restaurant, the cumulative consumption of 4.9 million yuan.
2008 August, Chang-ching after the departure of the company required to return rental property Mu Yong, Zhou Xing to new company commander on behalf of the leasing company to another body of owners Xi Hua Yu, the two sides signed 20-year rental contract.
contract yet to come, houses were forced to withdraw, Mu Yong believes that he and the company signed a lease contract was valid, the company will be leased to another house, a breach of contract. Found invalid under the company argued, in April 2009, Mu Yong-owned company in the mission field will be angry and former company commander often Qing court, for the lifting of the rental contract, and to ask the mission field to return the rent 25000 yuan; and the liquidated damages and compensation for loss of 1.5 million yuan.
the case after the two courts, the verdict different.
verdict: agreement not yet reached the mission field of breach of contract, compensation for loss of Mu Yong
court, the mission field that Mu Yong had never paid rent to the company, so there is no return of rent the problem. Mu Yong, the company not to pay rent, houses rented out to another company will not constitute a breach of contract. Chang Qing Mu Yong individual signing the restaurant consumption, the mission field without authorization, so is not the official conduct. Chang Qing did not offset the rent right meals, meals should always celebrate the individual.
Changqing also argued in court: During my tenure with Li Hua, Mu Yong lease contract between the behavior of all duties, meals off against the rent is based on the company's economic status was determined, the beneficiary is not I, the resulting legal consequences should not be by my personal commitment.
Shihezi City People's court case that: the company and the rental contract signed by Li Hua effective. Li Hua after the company agreed to sublease to Mu Yong, legitimate and effective behavior of the sublease. Chang Mu Yong Qing and Li Hua and behavior contract on behalf of the company's official conduct, and the company without legal personality, so the resulting legal consequences shall be qualified by a legal commitment to the mission field. Although the mission field to celebrate unauthorized often meals off against the rent, but in view of Chang-ching's special status, resulting in Li Hua, Mu Yong believes that its actions were the delegation field.
Mu Yong meals separate case not to pay the rent default claims
court held that, because Mu Yong perform the lease contract only 19 months (December 2006-July 2008) , rents have occurred 2.3 million yuan, and the mission field in Mu Yong at the meal has reached 4.9 million yuan, so the two sides of the lease contract is terminated, the mission field should be set off against the extra meals rent of $ 2.5 million Mu Yong returned. Mission field and the agreement does not expire Mu Yong, puts rental to others, this constitutes breach of contract, the mission field liquidated damages shall Mu Yong and the possible benefits loss.
Shihezi City People's Court of first instance verdict: Mu Yong and the mission field rental contract to lift; Farms Mu Yong remaining rental payments of $ 2.5 million, liquidated damages and compensation for loss of Mu Yong 9833 yuan.
upheld: Mu Yong, breach of contract unpaid rent, meals and other case advocate
for the first trial, refused to accept the mission field, and in August 2010 to the Intermediate People's Nong Bashi Court of Appeal.
insisted that the mission field, often served as company commander during the celebration can only be exercised within the scope of their functions. Individuals signing dinner, without the mission field can only be confirmed by personal commitment, personal consumption behavior has nothing to do with the job. According to the mission field to re-request the court of second instance verdict.
second instance court, Mu Yong argued: Chang-ching as a company commander, company name many times to my restaurant to serve meals, so I have reason to believe that Chang-ching represents the mission field. I request to maintain verdict.
Changqing also insisted that: I conduct their duties, the trial verdict is correct.
for , and several times in the Mu Yong consumer dining restaurant business, the act authorized without the mission field, and the large amount of meals, nor into the company financial accounts, therefore, set off with the rental agreement is invalid meals by This should be the legal consequences often celebrate the individual.
Nong Bashi Intermediate People's Court held that, because Mu Yong has never had to pay rent to the mission field, the actual claim is often set off against the rent celebration dinner after the consumption of meals, and this request Mu Yong case does not belong to the same legal relationship, the case is the rental contract disputes, claims for meals Mu Yong, the same result with the case is not a legal relationship, should stand separate case.
Recently, Nong Bashi Intermediate People's Court made the final decision: Mu Yong and the mission field between the rental contract is discharged, dismissed Mu Yong's other claims.
(text characters are not his real name)
judges say
Nong Bashi Intermediate People's Court: the case of a point of contention is often celebrate with the handling of meals off against the rent whether the conduct of their duties.
China's engaged in the business or business-related behavior is the official conduct of business entity shall bear civil liability. Case, Chang-ching as the mission field under the company's commander, he and Mu Yong signed rental contract is to fulfill the job behavior, the contract was valid. Because the company does not have legal personality, the legal consequences that should be its corporate commitment to the mission field.
often celebrate with a meal with the MU Yong set off against the rental agreement, then he operated several restaurants in the dining Mu Yong consumption, the act has been the mission field without prior authorization, and afterwards accepted without the mission field and a relatively large amount nor the meals into the company financial accounts, therefore, often with MU Yong Qing agreed with the handling of the meal off against the rent agreement is invalid, the legal consequences arising therefrom shall be borne by the often celebrate their own.
because the case is the rental contract disputes, mainly to solve the rental contract is discharged, whether super-Mu Yong rent and breach of contract issues. Because Mu Yong never pay rent to the mission field, first breach of contract, so the mission field right to terminate the contract. Mu Yong can claim compensation for breach of contract payments and loss of profits of the request can not be established. Mu Yong claim for meals, as with the case does not belong to the same legal relationship, can be charged separate case.
contract also agreed: if the company defaults early retirement homes, should be the year 50% of the total contract rent to pay liquidated damages or set off against Li Hua rent. If the payment of liquidated damages sufficient to cover the loss of Li Hua, the company should bear the liability.
Related articles:
没有评论:
发表评论