>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Chengdu Pengwei Industry Co., Ltd. v. People's Government of Yongxiu County of Jiangxi Province and Office of the Leading Group for the Administration of Sand Mining of Poyang Lake of Yongxiu County (A case about disputes over mining rights)
成都鹏伟实业有限公司与江西省永修县人民政府、永修县鄱阳湖采砂管理工作领导小组办公室采矿权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 12-19-2009
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 4,2010

Chengdu Pengwei Industry Co., Ltd. v. People’s Government of Yongxiu County of Jiangxi Province and Office of the Leading Group for the Administration of Sand Mining of Poyang Lake of Yongxiu County (A case about disputes over mining rights)
(A case about disputes over mining rights)
成都鹏伟实业有限公司与江西省永修县人民政府、永修县鄱阳湖采砂管理工作领导小组办公室采矿权纠纷案

Chengdu Pengwei Industry Co., Ltd. v. People's Government of Yongxiu County of Jiangxi Province and Office of the Leading Group for the Administration of Sand Mining of Poyang Lake of Yongxiu County
(A case about disputes over mining rights)

 

成都鹏伟实业有限公司与江西省永修县人民政府、永修县鄱阳湖采砂管理工作领导小组办公室采矿权纠纷案

 [裁判摘要]
 一、当事人在网站发布公开拍卖推介书的行为,实质上是就公开拍卖事宜向社会不特定对象发出的要约邀请。在受要约人与之建立合同关系,且双方对合同约定的内容产生争议时,该要约邀请对合同的解释可以产生证据的效力。
 二、公平原则是当事人订立、履行民事合同所应遵循的基本原则。最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国合同法>若干问题的解释(二)》根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》关于公平原则的规定,确立了合同履行过程中的情势变更原则,该解释第二十六条规定:“合同成立以后客观情况发生了当事人在订立合同时无法预见的、非不可抗力造成的不属于商业风险的重大变化,继续履行合同对于一方当事人明显不公平或者不能实现合同目的,当事人请求人民法院变更或者解除合同的,人民法院应当根据公平原则,并结合案件的实际情况确定是否变更或者解除。”据此,由于无法预料的自然环境变化的影响导致合同目的无法实现,若继续履行合同则必然造成一方当事人取得全部合同收益,而另一方当事人承担全部投资损失,受损方当事人请求变更合同部分条款的,人民法院应当予以支持。
Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院
Civil Judgment 民事判决书
No.91 [2008], Civil Division II, Final. (2008)民二终字第91号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Chengdu Pengwei Industry Co., Ltd., domiciled at: No.108 Scientific & Technological Fortune Center, High-Tech Incubator Park, South Extension Line, Chengdu High-Tech Zone, Sichuan Province. 上诉人(原审原告):成都鹏伟实业有限公司。住所地:四川省成都高新区南延线高新孵化园科技财富中心108号。
Legal representative: Zhang Wei, chairman of the board of directors of this company. 法定代表人:张伟,该公司董事长。
Attorney: Wan Biwen, a lawyer of Jiangxi Yang Zhong Yang Law Firm. 委托代理人:万必闻,江西阳中阳律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Qu Songping, a lawyer of Beijing Xinyi Law Firm. 委托代理人:曲诵平,北京市鑫义律师事务所律师。
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): The People's Government of Yongxiu County of Jiangxi Province, domiciled at: Yongxiu County, Jiangxi Province. 被上诉人(原审被告):江西省永修县人民政府。住所地:江西省永修县。
Legal representative: Xu Yaochun, the mayor of this county. 法定代表人:徐耀纯,该县县长。
Attorney: Luo Aiping, a lawyer of Jiangxi Boyi Law Firm. 委托代理人:罗爱平,江西博一律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Huang Caitian, a lawyer of Jiangxi Boyi Law Firm. 委托代理人:黄彩甜,江西博一律师事务所律师。
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Office of the Leading Group for the Administration of Sand Mining of Poyang Lake of Yongxiu County, domiciled at: Yongxiu County, Jiangxi Province. 被上诉人(原审被告):永修县鄱阳湖采砂管理工作领导小组办公室。住所地:江西省永修县。
Legal Representative: Gong Quanwu, the principal of this office. 法定代表人:龚全武,该办公室负责人。
Attorney: Zhang Baosheng, a lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm. 委托代理人:张宝生,北京市金杜律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Zhang Jie, a lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm. 委托代理人:张杰,北京市金杜律师事务所律师。
The appellant, Chengdu Pengwei Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Pengwei Company”) instituted an appeal in this Court against the Civil Judgment (No.12 [2007], Civil Division II, First Instance, Jiangxi) rendered by the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province for a case about disputes over sand mining rights between it and the appellees, the People's Government of Yongxiu County of Jiangxi Province (hereinafter referred to as “Yongxiu County Government”) and the Office of the Leading Group for the Administration of Sand Mining of Poyang Lake of Yongxiu County (hereinafter referred to as “Sand Mining Office”). This Court legally formed a collegial panel comprising judge Zhang Shuming as the presiding judge and acting judge Sha Ling and Zhou Lunjun to try the case. Court clerk Zhao Suijun kept a record of the trial. So far, the trial of this case has been concluded. 上诉人成都鹏伟实业有限公司(以下简称鹏伟公司)为与被上诉人江西省永修县人民政府(以下简称永修县政府)、永修县鄱阳湖采砂管理工作领导小组办公室 (以下简称采砂办)采矿权纠纷一案,不服江西省高级人民法院(2007)赣民二初字第 12号民事判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员张树明担任审判长,代理审判员沙玲、周伦军参加的合议庭进行了审理。书记员赵穗军担任记录。本案现已审理终结。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Through trial, the original trial court found that: In 2006, Yongxiu County Government decided to assign by auction the sand mining rights in No.5, 6, 7 and 8 Mining Lots of the Yongxiu County Water Area of Poyang Lake. Sand Mining Office prepared and published via China Investment Online an Invitation Presentation on Investment in the Sand Mining of Yongxiu County (Poyang Lake Sand Mining Development Project) (hereinafter referred to as the “Presentation”), which stated that “Poyang Lake has a early and long flood season lasting from early April to the end of November every year, i.e. roughly a sand producing life as long as 200 days; the amount of investment shall be above 110 million yuan, mainly including the price of the sand mining rights and relevant taxes and fees; the total sales amount may be 700 million to 1 billion yuan, and the profits may be 50 to 70 million yuan.” To assist the investment invitation, the staff of Sand Mining Office prepared a 2006 Feasibility Report on the Sand Mining in the Yongxiu Mining Area of Poyang Lake of Jiangxi Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Feasibility Report”), which contained a detailed analysis and budget about the investment prospect of the sand mining rights including profit mode, equipment input, staffing and income: “According to 260 dredger loads of sand produced a day, 1,500 tons per dredger load and 8 yuan per ton, the sand sales income of pump dredgers per working day will be 3.12 million yuan. The investor will take 30% of it, i.e. income of 936,000 yuan per working day, and on the basis of a whole mining season of 180 days, the investor's total income will be 168.48 million yuan. The costs will include the price of the sand mining rights which is 110 million yuan and the speed boat cost, charter hire, fuel surcharge, wages, living expenses, interest, charges for marine affairs, safety supervision and industrial & commercial administration and so on. The total costs will be around 118.324 million yuan (on the basis of a producing life of 6 months), and the profits will be 50.156 million yuan.” This Feasibility Report indicated in the investment risk column that sand mining was subject to policy risk, market risk and natural risk. “As far as natural risk is concerned, a dry year will affect the producing life greatly. However, a big flood year started in 1998 for the Yangtze River Basin and 8 years have passed. According to the general pattern, this year will be a big flood year too, and even if it is not, the average water level over years of Poyang Lake suggests that a sand producing life of 6 months (180 days) from the beginning of May through the end of October is a sure thing”. The Assessment Report [2006] on No. 6, 7 and 8 Mining Lots of Poyang Lake provided by Sand Mining Office to Zhang Wei, the board chairman of Pengwei Company also stated that: “The normal operating period of the mining lots is 6 months a year from the middle of May to the middle of November in a year. As a conservative investment assessment, it's assumed that the normal operating period is 4 months (120 days) after influences by weather and other factors are taken into account.” 原审法院经审理查明:2006年,永修县政府决定以拍卖的方式出让鄱阳湖永修县水域5、6、7、8号4个采区的采砂权。采砂办制作并在“中国投资在线”网站上登载了《永修县砂石开发招商引资推介书(鄱阳湖采砂开发项目)》(以下简称《推介书》)。该《推介书》称:“鄱阳湖汛期早,时间长,从每年4月上旬到11月底,开采期长达200天;投资金额1.1亿元人民币以上,主要为购买采矿权的价款和税费;销售总额可达 7-10亿元,利润5000-7000万元”。为配合招商引资,采砂办工作人员编写了《江西省鄱阳湖永修采区2006年采砂可行性报告》 (以下简称《可行性报告》),对采砂权的投资前景,包括运作盈利方式、设备投入、人员配置、效益等方面做了详细的分析预算:按每天采砂260船,每条船1500吨,每吨8元计算,每个工作日泵船销砂收入可达312万元,投资方按30%的比例提取提成款,每天可收入93.6万元,整个采季按180天计算,总收入可达16 848万元;成本包括采矿权价款1.1亿元,加上快艇成本、租船租金、燃油费、人员工资、生活费用、利息、海事安监工商收费等等,总成本约 11 832.4万元(按6个月采期计算);利润 5015.6万元。该《可行性报告》在投资风险一栏中指出,采砂存在政策风险、市场风险和自然风险。“自然风险,如果遇上枯水年,会对开采期造成较大影响。不过,1998年长江流域是大水年。从1998年到如今,已经8年。按一般规律,今年也是大水年。即使不是大水年,按照鄱阳湖常年水位,从5月初到10月底,开采6个月(180天)是没有问题的。”采砂办提供给鹏伟公司董事长张伟的《鄱阳湖6、7、8三个采区评估 (2006)报告》也指出:“采区正常营运时间本年度5月中旬-11月中旬,全年为期6个月,为作保守投资评估,减去因天气等因素,假定正常营业时间为4个月(120天)”。
...... 2006年4月17日,江西省水利厅作出赣水政法字(2006)24号批复,主要内容为:“原则同意2006年鄱阳湖永修县部分水域河道采砂开采权拍卖方案。拍卖可采期限为2006年5月1日至2006年12月 31日,控制采砂船为38条,年控制开采总量为2320万吨。”该批复附件载明:“鄱阳湖永修县6号采区控制泵数5艘、年控采量110万吨,6-1号采区控制泵数5艘、年控采量600万吨,7号采区控制泵数10艘、年控采量330万吨,7-1号采区控制泵数4艘、年控采量500万吨,8号采区控制泵数2艘、年控采量50万吨,8-1号采区控制泵数2艘、年控采量150万吨;全年禁采四个月以上。”
 采砂办委托山东银星拍卖有限公司负责本次采砂权出让事宜,双方做出的《拍卖会标的清单》和《拍卖会特别约定》载明:“鄱阳湖永修县6、7、8号采区采砂权起拍价4068万元;买受人承担采区工作费用 25.2万元,按核定采砂船1000元/月/艘收取;税费3550万元,包括应缴国家税收、河道采砂管理费和矿产资源补偿费。”2006年4月26日,鹏伟公司以4678万元竞得鄱阳湖永修县水域6、7、8号采区采砂权。随后,鹏伟公司陆续向永修县非税收入管理局交纳8228万元,该局出具了相应金额的收费票据,8228万元的收费项目名称均为“采区拍卖款”。2006年5月10日,采砂办与鹏伟公司正式签订《鄱阳湖永修县6、 7、8号采区采砂权出让合同》(简称《采砂权出让合同》),约定:“一、采砂权使用期限自签订本合同之日至2006年12月31日止,同时满足防汛要求;采砂船数量28艘 (功率4000kw以内/艘);年控制采量1740万吨;二、拍卖成交金额8228万元(包括税费);十、本合同约定的采区采砂权使用期限,是根据上级主管部门的批文当年度的有效可采期,实际可采期限以当年水位不能供采砂船只作业时为准”。
 自2006年7月以后,江西省持续高温干旱天气,降雨偏少,长江江西段出现同期罕见枯水位,鄱阳湖水大量流入长江,水位急剧下降,出现自20世纪70年代初期以来罕见的低水位。2006年8月18日,因鄱阳湖水位过低造成运砂船难以进入采区,鹏伟公司被迫停止采砂。为此,鹏伟公司致函采砂办要求解决开采时间缩短、砂源不足等问题。根据江西省永修县港航管理所的证明,该所于2006年度每日在6时至 18时段对鄱阳湖永修水域5、6、7、8号采区的采砂收取货物港务费,共计收取 875.774万元,有效收费票据7935张,即砂量875.774万吨,运力船只7935艘次。据此,鄱阳湖永修水域5、6、7、8号采区平均每艘运砂船运力为1103.6849吨。根据鹏伟公司自认其共运砂20 900船次,可推算出采量为2306.7015万吨。另据江西省水文局档案资料记载,2006年8月18日湖口水道星子站日平均水位为13.05米,该水位自1970年以来一般出现在10月中下旬以后。据采砂办和鹏伟公司介绍,2006年鄱阳湖的砂石价格在6元至8元之间。
 原审另查明:采砂办是永修县政府直属事业单位,其宗旨和业务范围为:负责宣传国家有关法律法规和政策,协调采砂各方关系,对采砂进行监管,维护采砂正常秩序,经费来源为财政拨款。根据《2006年鄱阳湖水修辖区采砂管理实施办法》,采砂管理工作领导小组由永修县委、县政府相关部门和单位主要领导组成,采砂管理工作领导小组下设采砂办,负责采砂日常工作,其工作经费由永修县财政安排。本案纠纷发生后,2007年鄱阳湖永修县水域5、6、7号采区的采砂权被永修县水电建筑工程公司经拍卖取得,该公司与永修县水务局签订《鄱阳湖永修水域河砂开采管理协议》,约定,开采期限“原则上自本协议签订起至 2007年12月31日止,实际可采期以当年水位不能供采砂船只作业时为准。同时满足防汛要求和国家重点建设要求等不可预见的相关政策。因水位等客观原因造成不能生产等的一切风险由永修县水电建筑工程公司自行承担。”永修县水电建筑工程公司取得的采砂权年控制采量为2380万吨,合同价款6016万元,其中河道砂石资源费 1904万元,该公司自2007年6月20日进场开采至2007年10月10日停止作业。
 2007年8月,鹏伟公司向原审法院提起民事诉讼,请求解除其与采砂办签订的《采砂权出让合同》;采砂办、永修县政府依照合同约定补足135天采期并提供全部税费发票;如采砂办、永修县政府不能补足采期,则应退还鹏伟公司多支付的拍卖成交款4727万元(含税费);诉讼费用由采砂办、永修县政府承担。一审庭审中,鹏伟公司撤回了补足135天采期的诉讼请求。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese