Geographically, the two projects are far apart, so there is no possibility that the respondent misunderstood that Liang Huatong has the authority of 600N) w project.
The mobile phone number 16621881983 (same as wechat) is the gist of the judgment.
Ordos project is the 600MW project of Zhanjiang No.1 construction.
Zhanjiang No.1 construction authorized others to take over the two projects.
In addition, the original judgment held that (2012) cmzz No.
The evidence submitted by the retrial applicant has proved that Liang Huatong entered into a lease contract in the name of the retrial applicant, which is not the true intention of the retrial applicant.
1685 civil judgment determined that the 600MW project was undertaken by the retrial applicant and that Liang Huatong and Liang Huapeng were the heads of the 600MW project department or actual construction personnel.
Legal representative: Chen Kangbao, general manager of the company.
During the court trial, Zhanjiang No.
In the inquiry record, Liang Huatong confessed to the fact that he privately engraved the official seal and used the privately engraved official seal to sign the lease contract involved with the retrial respondent, which is enough to overturn the fact that the legal relationship of the lease contract recognized in the original judgment is true and effective.
First of all, the so-called 600MW project is actually the business undertaken by Liang Huatong in the name of the retrial applicant by privately engraving the official seal of the retrial applicant.
3402 retrial applicant (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance): Zhanjiang first construction engineering company.
Liang Huatong has never received any legal authorization from the retrial applicant for the 600MW project.
Enterprises are welcome to customize the free course of enterprise legal risk prevention, which can be started by ten people; You are welcome to consult the legal issues for free.
Until February 2012, Liang Huatong withdrew from Ordos and ustai projects.
The retrial applicant is unaware of this, let alone issuing the corresponding power of attorney to Liang Huatong, and there is no subsequent confirmation.
（3） Because this case involves the suspicion of economic crime, the trial shall be suspended or the prosecution shall be dismissed according to law, but the original judgment is arbitrary and violates the fair procedure of civil litigation, which shall be corrected according to law.
The retrial applicant Zhanjiang No.1 Construction Engineering Company (hereinafter referred to as Zhanjiang No.1 Construction) refused to accept the civil judgment (2015) Jimin Yizhong Zi No.
In fact, the judgment only confirmed the validity of the lease contract, did not identify the construction subject of the 600MW project, and itself was not enough to become the basis for the original judgment to identify the facts of the case.
Liang Huatong’s behavior shall not have any agency legal consequences for the retrial applicant.
1 construction defaulted on Bai Zengjiang’s rent, Bai Zengjiang filed a lawsuit against Zhanjiang No.
To say the least, even if Liang Huatong’s act meets the constitutive requirements of apparent agency, it is an invalid civil legal act because it does not meet the substantive requirements of civil legal act, and it cannot constitute apparent agency, and the lease contract should also be invalid.
Lawyer Zhang has been practicing for ten years and has long been committed to the research and practice of company compliance.
The retrial applicant obtained the original of Liang Huatong’s inquiry record from the Alxa League Public Security Bureau and submitted it as new evidence.
1 Construction on February 14, 2012.
38 of Hebei Higher People’s court and applied to this court for retrial due to the dispute over the lease contract with the respondent Bai Zengjiang.
Address: Dengta Road, Potou District, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province.
Secondly, the retrial applicant only issued the power of attorney and contract stamped with the official seal to Liang Huatong for the USTC project.
2.
3, row 2, Meijian community, Leshou Town, Xian County, Cangzhou City, Hebei Province.
As Zhanjiang No.
At this time, the construction company shall not claim that the contract signed by the affiliated person with forged seal is not binding on it.
The court of first instance shall review and determine the legal effect of the lease contract again according to law.
The construction company allows others to be affiliated for operation, which is enough to make the opposite party of the transaction have reason to believe that the seal of the construction company used by the affiliated person is authentic and that the affiliated person has obtained the authorization of the construction company, and the affiliated person can constitute the apparent agent of the construction company.
The original judgment relied too much on the facts identified in the previous civil judgment and mistakenly determined that there was a lease relationship between the retrial applicant and the respondent.
The original judgment attributed the legal consequences of the written agreement signed by Liang Huatong to the error of the retrial applicant.
Respondent: Bai Zengjiang, male, born on October 7, 1975, Han nationality, owner of Xinxing building materials leasing Station in Xian County, address: No.
The court has formed a collegial panel for examination according to law, and the examination has been concluded.
Civil ruling of retrial application for dispute over lease contract between Zhanjiang first construction engineering company and Bai Zengjiang civil ruling of Supreme People’s Court (2015) minshen Zi No.
The reasons for Zhanjiang Yijian’s application for retrial are as follows: (1) there is new evidence in this case, which is enough to overturn the original judgment and ruling.
Finally, the respondent failed to provide the power of attorney presented by Liang Huatong to the people’s court in all court trials, and the respondent itself had a serious fault of negligence.
Respondent Bai Zengjiang replied that: (1) the facts of the original first and second instance were clear, the trial procedure was legal and the judgment was correct, and the retrial application of Zhanjiang first construction should be rejected.
1 construction recognized the lease relationship sued by Bai Zengjiang and had no objection to the authenticity and legitimacy of the material receipt and return..
（2） The main facts of the original judgment in this case are lack of evidence, and the application of law is wrong.
Liang Huatong has carried out business activities on behalf of Zhanjiang No.1 Construction since 2009.
The respondent neglected to sign the lease contract with Liang Huatong, and the legal consequences could not be attributed to the retrial applicant.
In conclusion, Zhanjiang Yijian requested the court to revoke the judgment of the first and second instance according to the provisions of items (1), (2) and (6) of article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people’s Republic of China, change the judgment and reject the litigation claim of the respondent Bai Zengjiang, and the litigation expenses shall be borne by Bai Zengjiang.
1.
The authorization of the power of attorney is clear and the authority is clear.