The representative of the People’s Procuracy at the appellate level also suggested that the first-instance judgment be annulled because many issues related to the conclusion of the contract, the compensation claim and the request for fines for violations were not clear.
The People’s Court of Lam Dong province has just heard the appellate court annulled the judgment of the land lease contract dispute between Nguyen Phat Tourism Company Limited (Nguyen Phat Company) and Da Lat Tourism and Service Joint Stock Company (DalatTSC). . This is a claim with a fairly large amount of more than 53 billion VND.
As reported by the Law of Ho Chi Minh City , on January 1, 2016, Mr. Ta Hoang Giang, Director of DalatTSC, signed contract No. 01 for Nguyen Phat Company to lease more than 887 m2 of space at La tulipe mall in Da Nang city. Lat. But DalatTSC reacted because the contract was signed on January 1, but on January 8, 2016, Nguyen Phat Company was granted a business registration certificate for the first time. Mr. Giang is the director but not the legal representative of DalatTSC and at the time of signing DalatTSC has not yet liquidated the space lease contract with another individual named Hung. DalatTSC also did not know the signing of this contract, the rental agreement money was transferred through an individual as an intermediary, not into the account of DalatTSC.
Since then, DalatTSC has made a written request to re-sign, but Nguyen Phat Company sues that DalatTSC unilaterally terminates the contract, demanding compensation of more than 53.5 billion VND including 15 items (including the amount that will be enjoyed if the contract is terminated by DalatTSC). the contract was not canceled nearly 32 billion dong)…
At the beginning of 2017, the People’s Court of Da Lat City held a first-instance trial and ordered DalatTSC to pay Nguyen Phat Company more than VND 37.6 billion. DalatTSC appealed the entire judgment, Nguyen Phat appealed for compensation of VND 53.5 billion as originally requested.
At the appellate court session, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Lam Dong province proposed to cancel the first-instance judgment because of many unknown issues related to the conclusion of the contract, the claim for compensation and the request for fines for violations.
The Court of Appeal said that the first-instance judgment had not clarified a number of key issues. Specifically, it is not clear whether the nature of contract No. 01 is independent or has an inherited relationship from the previous contract between DalatTSC and Mr. Hung. The role and responsibilities of Mr. Giang have not been clarified with the signing of contract 01 of the Sales Manager of DalatTSC and of the middleman in the collection of monthly cash.
The first instance court also did not clarify the purpose and effect of the contract liquidation minutes between DalatTSC and Mr. Hung, and Mr. Hung’s role in signing contract 01.
In addition, it is necessary to clarify the amount of 400 million VND and what is the money that Nguyen Phat Company gives to the intermediary and the claims for damages. The process of implementing the charter and internal governance regulations of DalatTSC has not been clarified to determine whether or not the director’s authority to enter into contract No. 01. The first instance level also did not clarify after the two parties signed the contract what exchanges and wills when performing the contract.
It is necessary to clarify the will of DalatTSC when proposing to cancel the contract is to terminate or re-sign a new contract, what will be the will of the parties to evaluate whether or not the unilateral termination of the contract is to determine the error. .
Before the trial, although the appellate court asked the parties to add relevant evidences, it still could not overcome the above shortcomings. Since then, the court has annulled the entire first-instance judgment, handing over the file to the People’s Court of Da Lat for first-instance trial.
Earlier at the first-instance trial, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Da Lat city also asked the court to reject the entire petition of Nguyen Phat Company, declaring the contract No. 01 invalid and canceling the contract. The Institute also proposed not to accept the plaintiff’s request for compensation, including profits that the plaintiff would enjoy more than 32 billion VND. But in the end the court ruled in the opposite direction.
Especially According to DalatTSC’s appeal, the first-instance judgment was still violated because it only ordered the defendant to compensate without declaring the contract valid or not. While the plaintiff’s claim consists of two ideas, a contract dispute and a claim for damages. In addition, after declaring the defendant to pay compensation, the court left it blank and did not decide which party had the right to manage and use the ground area (which was the subject of the contract).
Source: According to plo.vn
For support and advice on resolving the dispute in the best way, please contact us at the following information:
DHP LAW SHOP
Address: L4-09.OT06 Landmark 4 Building Vinhomes Central Park , 720A Dien Bien Phu, Ward 22, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City