This case is a very special sale contract case. First, the contract for the sale of disputes are usually the seller when the plaintiff, sued the buyer, the buyer payment. While the case is the buyer to the seller to tell. Second, about the right of defense, to perform many papers, but in practice, the "counterpleaing right" as the litigation request to claim case almost noIn this case, we proxy the plaintiff, asking the court to confirm191Million yuan of equipment to enjoy right of defense. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff and defendant reached a settlement, the plaintiff's litigation purpose.

Case synopsis

2012Years1Month9DayThe defendant signed ", the original equipment and material transfer agreement", the agreement, both parties A and B (the defendant) transfer equipment and supplies to reach a consensus as follows: Party A agrees to "all production printing plant fixed assets depreciation statement" indicate the equipment and materials, and ultimately to RMB706The value of Yuan transferred to B. The money used for the first party debt repayment for Party B274Million yuan, pay Party A in the mortgage production equipment of the bank, the remaining balance in the signing of this agreement, three working days to complete the handover work, paid by Party B to Party A.

After signing the contract, the plaintiff promised to deduct the repayment of the debt274Million yuan, to the defendant220Million for the defendant to pay mortgage banks, but also for the defendant to pay debts21Million, the remaining tail section191Million in three days after the completion of the transfer payment equipment. But the defendant does not pay the plaintiff220Million yuan of funds to repay bank loans, not to lift equipment mortgage. The defendant in2012Years1Month12The corresponding day over equipment for the written confirmation list, but still control equipment to continue production equipment and materials, not substantive transfer. Consider the plaintiff, the defendant's default behavior, violated the legitimate rights, request the court to order the defendant to perform the contract, rescission transfer equipment in the mortgage banks, the withdrawal of personnel to complete the transfer of equipment delivery, and should be in accordance with the equipment worth of overdue payment fines ratio for breach of contract liability during the period of occupation, and that in the the defendant fails to perform the obligations, the plaintiff to the tail section191Million payment enjoy the right of defense to perform.

In the case of the trial, both sides in the court presided over by a mediation agreement and successfully fulfilled, the unblocked the device and delivery the plaintiff, the plaintiff to pay the balance.

Postscript

The case appears to be simple, actually quite complicated legal relationship, such as effectiveness, equipment transfer agreement, because the equipment has set collateral, without the consent of the mortgagee, force transfer the mortgaged property issues, according to China's "property law" article191Article2Section of the mortgaged property transfer provisions: "the mortgage period, without the consent of the mortgagee, shall not transfer the mortgaged property, but the transferee pays off the debts on behalf of mortgage." Although the transfer of equipment are intended to pay off mortgage debt, and in the fulfillment, the mortgagor and did not use the transfer price to repay their debts, shall be null and void. If the decision is to solve the problems involved in the transfer of equipment, must add mortgagee in the case of third people. More trouble is, the defendant is not the equipment directly mortgaged to the bank, but by the Guarantee Corporation to obtain loans, equipment, most likely as a counter guarantee collateral to the Guarantee Corporation(This fact, in the process of mediation each other did not deny, but because there is no access to formal trial, no evidence, only speculation.)So, the third one is the banks and Guarantee Corporation, many mortgage equipment, make the case more complicated. Most fortunately, met a very responsible at mediation judges, both sides reached a conciliation, and terminate the mortgage right transfer device with a debt. The complexity of the case is simple. This is the more successful case for me this year. The mood is veryHAPPY! (process or more depressed oh.)

 In this case, I always feel I write too simple, very dissatisfied with their own. Put a period of time, or the bustling about, no progress, she first blog. Hope some day, take the case to enrich the modification.