Recently, by Beijing King&Capital Law Firm Sun Yanhui, Liu Yang lawyers intervened in the retrial stage of the client and a trading company futures trading disputes, by the Supreme People's Court retrial review, and ultimately ruled to reject the trade company's application for a retrial, the results of the second trial judgment can be solidly maintained. As a world top 500 municipal state-owned enterprise, the client's legal rights and interests are related to the security of state-owned assets and the stability of the enterprise's operation. Sun Yanhui and Liu Yang, with their professional legal skills, comprehensive evidence compilation and precise defense ideas, successfully blocked the application for retrial and avoided the enterprise from suffering huge losses, and achieved a successful result in their representation.
Basic facts of the case
This case originated from a civil dispute named sale and purchase but actually futures brokerage transaction.In April 2019, a trading company entrusted the principal in this case to carry out futures trading, and the two parties established a cooperative relationship by signing documents such as “Power Coal Sales Offer” and “Coal Purchase and Sales Contract”, agreeing that a certain trading company would provide power coal meeting the standard for futures delivery, and pay a performance deposit. The client entered the market according to the instruction of a trading company, and after the successful pairing, because a trading company failed to provide the spot according to the agreement, it was entrusted to two other two coal companies to purchase coal for delivery. Later, because the quality of some of the purchased coal was not up to the standard, the principal first paid the buyer for breach of contract, incurring a loss of about 16 million yuan and the corresponding capital occupancy fee.
Previously, the effective judgment of the other case had recognized that the futures brokerage contract between the two parties was invalid, and the principal had sued a trading company for compensation for the loss due to the proxy contract dispute, which was rejected due to the inconsistency between the claim of legal relationship and the court's determination. Later, the client sued again based on the futures brokerage contract, the court of first instance ruled against the client on the grounds that there was no legal causal relationship between the loss and a trading company, and the court of second instance changed the judgment to hold a trading company liable for 50% of the loss. A trading company was not satisfied with the result of the change of judgment, and applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial on the grounds of “lack of causal relationship between the loss, the Letter of Entrustment was forged, procedural violation, wrong application of law, and constituting duplicate litigation”, and the client, facing the risk of the success of the results of the lawsuit being overthrown and the damage of state-owned assets, entrusted our lawyers to act for the relevant matters at the stage of the retrial. Matters.
Difficulties
[Intensive retrial subject matter, prominent defense pressure] A trading company focused on multiple retrial grounds, covering factual findings, core evidence validity, legality of litigation procedures, rules of law application and duplicate litigation and other key dimensions, involving futures transactions, special rules, contract invalidation liability division and other professional legal issues, which need to be disassembled and accurately responded to one by one.
The dispute over core evidence was acute and concerned the direction of the case] A trading company pointed out that the Letter of Entrustment was forged, signed in reverse and not examined in an attempt to negate the core facts of the entrusted procurement, and denied the causal relationship between the loss and itself, and the determination of the validity of the core evidence became the key to deciding whether the case would be won or lost.
[Complex legal relationship, rigorous application of logic] This case needs to clarify the boundaries of responsibility after the futures brokerage contract is invalid, accurately distinguish between contracting fault and performance fault, accurate application of the Supreme People's Court on the trial of futures disputes on a number of issues of the Provisions of the Special Provisions of the Supreme People's Court and other specialized provisions of the application of the law of the professionalism and logic of the requirements of the very high.
Key points for lawyers to handle cases
Comprehensive review of the case and construction of closed-loop evidence chain] After the intervention of our lawyers, with the core of safeguarding the safety of state-owned assets, we conducted in-depth review of all the materials of the first trial, the second trial and the related cases, and comprehensively sorted out the WeChat chatting records, Coal Purchase and Sales Contracts, Entrustment Letters, transaction vouchers, effective judgments and other evidence to construct the chain of evidence. Focusing on refining the key contents of the WeChat chat records of the two sides on trading instructions, sourcing, purchasing communication, knowledge of losses, etc., combined with the fact that the effective judgment found that the futures trading in the case was carried out according to the instructions of a certain trading company, to consolidate the direct causal relationship between the losses and a certain trading company.
Targeted to break through the core dispute, defending the effectiveness of the key evidence] For the focus of the controversy of the “letter of entrustment”, the lawyers from the procedure and the entity of the two dimensions of the defense: procedural, clear that the “letter of entrustment” has been in the first trial, the second trial by full cross-examination, the authenticity of a trading company of the seal without objection, the re-trial stage of the claim that the “forgeries” “Without examination” and the fact is seriously inconsistent; entity, combined with wechat chat records of the two sides of the prior consent, explaining the “letter of entrustment” is a trading company to entrust the procurement of the fact of the written after the fact, in line with the “first to fulfill the confirmation” of the transaction habits, content With the actual fulfillment of the situation is completely consistent, should be recognized as true and effective.
Precise interpretation of legal provisions, clear division of responsibility boundaries] The lawyer analyzed the relevant legal provisions in depth, and responded to the claims of a trading company such as “confusing the type of fault” and “failure to prioritize the application of the special provisions”, etc.: on the one hand, it was clear that the loss was based on the validity of the contract of reliance. On the one hand, it was clear that the loss in the case was the actual loss incurred by the principal based on the validity of the trust contract, which belonged to the scope of loss compensation after the contract was invalidated, and the failure of a certain trading company to provide the spot in accordance with the contract was the fundamental reason for the loss, and the loss was causally related to it.
Conclusion
This case was lost in the first trial, won in the second trial, and faced multiple complex disputes in the retrial stage, which involved professional legal issues and key evidence in the field of futures trading, and was related to the security of state-owned assets. After Sun Yanhui and Liu Yang intervened in the review stage of the retrial, with solid professional skills, meticulous evidence combing ability and precise defense ideas, they dismantled the claims of the retrial applicant one by one, and successfully persuaded the Supreme People's Court to reject the retrial application, and stabilized the results of the second trial to change the verdict. This victory not only reflects the professional advantages and practical ability of King&Capital Law Firm in the retrial of complex commercial disputes, but also highlights its professionalism and responsibility in the critical stage of litigation in the face of danger, and fully safeguard the security of state-owned assets and the legitimate rights and interests of state-owned enterprises.
