Lawyer Larry Zhou Settled Dispute On Behalf Of A Decoration Contractor, Avoiding One Million Loss

Our client has entered into a contract for a villa decoration project and subcontracted a portion of this decoration project to a contractor, disbursing the corresponding project funds to the latter. Upon completion of the decoration project, the contractor initiated a lawsuit against our client and the villa owner, seeking approximately RMB 1 million in project funds from both our client and the villa owner.

Acting on behalf of our client, we submitted a defense to the court, highlighting that the project settlement statement presented by the contractor as evidence was self – generated, lacking the signatures of our client and the villa owner, and thus unable to substantiate the existence of unpaid project funds.

Subsequently, the court determined that, due to the absence of a construction permit for the villa decoration project in this case, and the fact that neither our client nor the contractor possessed the qualifications to undertake the decoration project, the decoration contract in this instance was rendered invalid.

Consequently, the contractor amended the claim, demanding that our client and the villa owner compensate the contractor for the losses incurred from undertaking the decoration project. The contractor alleged that our client had deceived them during the signing of the decoration contract by concealing the fact that the decoration project lacked a construction permit and that our client lacked the qualification to contract the decoration project.

In response to the contractor’s revised lawsuit request, we submitted a new defense to the court, stating the following: 1. Our client did not deceive the contractor into signing the contract. 2. The contractor has no evidence to demonstrate the losses resulting from undertaking the decoration project. 3. Our client has evidence to prove that the project funds have been paid to the contractor.

Ultimately, the court accepted our viewpoints and dismissed all of the contractor’s claims. As a result, our client was not obligated to pay any funds to the contractor.