The case was ruling
Tap **Zoom in and swipe left and right to view.
A brief description of the case
On May 12, 2022, the applicant, Shanghai A Technology, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant, and the respondent, Shenzhen B Network Technology, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent, signed the Project Outsourcing AgreementThe agreement stipulates:
The applicant accepts the entrustment of the respondent to complete the production of the first episode of the G virtual IP material upgrade, including the production of the G model and the production ......of the content **The content of the work is subject to the published script, the size and format are subject to the needs of the respondent, and the time of completion of the work is the production of the project involved in the contract, and the applicant will start the production after receiving the advance payment, and the production cycle is expected to be six weeks, and the cost is 583,000 yuan (tax included).
After the contract is signed, the respondent shall pay the applicant RMB 291,500 in advance, and after the project is completed and submitted to the respondent and confirmed by the respondent for acceptance, the respondent shall pay the remaining 50% of the production fee to the applicant within seven working days, and if the respondent is late in payment, 05% shall bear the liquidated damages, and the maximum liquidated damages is 20% of the contract amount;
At the same time, it is agreed that if the respondent proposes to modify the work created by the applicant, the applicant shall modify it according to the requirements of the respondent until it passes the acceptance, and the respondent has no right to require the applicant to modify the work again after the project finally passes the acceptance, and the applicant shall not change the requirements after review and confirmation at will during the implementation or production period, and the applicant shall not be liable if the applicant's workload increases or the submission time is delayed, etc.
Since May 11, 2022, the applicant has started to carry out the production work in an orderly manner in accordance with the requirements of the respondent, and created and modified it in strict accordance with the requirements of the respondent, and the work was finally confirmed and finalized by the respondent on July 16, 2022, and confirmed and accepted on July 20, 2022. The payment period agreed by the parties had expired long ago, but the respondent delayed the payment of the contract amount of RMB 583,000.
Because the applicant has repeatedly failed to negotiate payment with the respondent, in order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interestsThe applicant entrusted lawyer Xiong Binrong of Beijing Henglu Law Firm to protect his rights, and now applies for arbitration in accordance with the contract.
Henglu's lawyer has a comprehensive understanding of the case, and after analyzing the terms of the contract one by one and the evidence materials such as WeChat chat between the two parties, on the premise of ensuring the maximum legitimate rights and interests of the partiesFiling a Request for Arbitration:
Confirm that the Project Outsourcing Agreement signed by the two parties was unilaterally terminated by the respondent on October 25, 2022; The respondent was ordered to pay the contract price of 583,000 yuan and the liquidated damages for overdue payment of 116,600 yuan, and bear the arbitration costs and attorney's fees in this case.
The focus of the case
The focus of the dispute in this case is: whether the applicant completed and delivered the agreed ** (first episode) of G virtual material upgrade as scheduled, and whether the work was accepted by the respondent.
q1
The respondent argued:
According to 63. It is stipulated that "whether it meets the requirements of Party A shall be subject to the reference quality provided by Party A." "The Applicant's delay in delivery and the quality of the work is not up to standard, which constitutes a fundamental breach of contract, and the Respondent is entitled to rely on Article 2 of the Project Outsourcing AgreementArticle 8 Cancellation of the contract without any payment. In particular, the respondent's business operations were seriously adversely affected by the applicant's inability to deliver eligible works; They also had to hire a third-party company to reproduce the works involved in the case, which caused a lot of losses, and they did not claim compensation from the applicant, let alone pay any fees to them. The Court of Arbitration is hereby requested to reject all the claimants' arbitration claims in accordance with the law.
q2
Henglue lawyer proposed:
1.Before the contract is signedThe applicant has sent more than a dozen versions of the plan to the respondent, and finally determined the final script according to the respondent's requirements. According to the Project Outsourcing Agreement12. The agreed "subject to the published script".Article 2Article 9 also clearly stipulates that during the implementation or production of the applicant, the respondent shall not arbitrarily change the requirements after review and confirmation, and the applicant shall not be liable if the workload of the applicant increases or the submission time is delayed. ”
2.According to the evidence submitted by us, it can be proved that in the entire creation process of the work, every link of the creation of the work is confirmed with the respondent step by step, and then proceeds to the next step.
3.The postponement of the work is due to the respondent. During the entire production process of the work, the respondent revised about 30% of the plan that had been confirmed and reviewed before, according to contract 29. The applicant shall not be liable for the increase in the applicant's workload or delay in the submission time due to the above circumstances. In addition, after the applicant informed that it would be extended due to amendments, the respondent expressly agreed to the extension.
4.The products provided by the applicant are accepted by the respondent and finally delivered. Liu, an employee of the respondent, took the initiative to finalize the version and deliver the most line, and then took the initiative to put forward the request of first acceptance and then ticket inspection, and then took the initiative to promise the applicant to pay the full amount, and then requested the applicant to mail the final payment invoice to the respondent, and according to the respondent's request to first accept and then inspect the ticket, and the respondent took the initiative to pay the full amount and mail the invoice, the applicant has reason to believe that the respondent has confirmed that the respondent has passed the acceptance of the work submitted by the applicant.
5.The contract stipulates that the acceptance needs to be carried out in writing, and the acceptance of WeChat and email also meets the conditions for written acceptance, even if it is not met, it is a new agreement reached by the two parties on the way of acceptance, and the applicant also sent the relevant acceptance documents according to the requirements of the respondent, so there is no acceptance or unqualified acceptance.
Verdict
After the hearing, it was ascertained that the arbitral tribunal adopted the main opinion of Henglu's lawyer and only adjusted the claim for liquidated damages for late payment.
Final Verdict:The respondent paid the contract price of RMB 58 to the applicant30,000 yuan; The respondent compensates the applicant for all attorney's fees; The arbitration fee in this case is RMB 30,366, and the claimant shall bear RMB 5,000The respondent bears 25,366 yuan.