>>>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
 
Beijing Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd. vs. China Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd. (Dispute over Payment of Goods)
北京市五金矿产进出口公司诉中国五金矿产进出口公司货款纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Beijing Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd. vs. China Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd. (Dispute over Payment of Goods)
(Dispute over Payment of Goods)
北京市五金矿产进出口公司诉中国五金矿产进出口公司货款纠纷案

Beijing Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd. vs. China Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd. (Dispute over Payment of Goods)@#

BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Beijing Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd.@#
Legal representative: ZU Yong, General Manager@#
Represented by: GAO Xiangjin, staff member of the company@#
Defendant: China Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd.@#
Legal representative: MIAO Gengshu, General Manager@#
Represented by: LIU Kefu, staff member of the company@#
The plaintiff, Beijing Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as BMMIEC), has filed a claim at the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing against China Metal and Mineral Import and Export Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CMMIEC) concerning their dispute over payment of goods.@#
The plaintiff claims: BMMIEC was entrusted by the defendant to supply welding pipes to Los Angeles Metal and Mineral Co. Ltd, USA (hereinafter referred to LAMMC), who did not settle the payment with BMMIEC. When BMMIEC requested the payment, it was told that the payment had been settled to CMMIEC. Therefore, BMMIEC requests the Court to rule that the defendant transfer the payment of 410,255.73 USD, pay the interest of 311,794.35 USD occurred and bear the charge of the Court for hearing this case.@#
The defendant contends: The supplier of the welding pipes involved in this case is the Branch Office of CMMIEC in Beijing, one of branch companies of CMMIEC. It is different from the plaintiff. As a branch company, the Branch Office of CMMIEC in Beijing is under the control of CMMIEC. They are not debtor and creditor in legal sense. The defendant can not represent the Branch Office to file this claim against CMMIEC. LAMMC, the receiver of the welding pipes, has never transferred the payment to CMMIEC. Therefore, the plaintiff should file its claim, if any, against LAMMC. In addition, the non-transfer of the payment occurred in 1998, which was well after the expiration of the limitation of action. Therefore, the claim should be dismissed by the Court.@#
......

 

北京市五金矿产进出口公司诉中国五金矿产进出口公司货款纠纷案@#
@#
原告:北京市五金矿产进出口公司。@#
法定代表人:左永,该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人:高湘晋,该公司干部。@#
被告:中国五金矿产进出口公司。@#
法定代表人:苗耕书,该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人:刘可夫,该公司干部。@#
原告北京市五金矿产进出口公司(以下简称北京五矿)因与被告中国五金矿产进出口公司(以下简称中国五矿)发生货款纠纷,向北京市第二中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称:我公司受被告的委托,给案外人美国洛杉矶五矿金属有限公司(以下简称洛杉矶五矿)发运焊管,所欠货款一直未结算。后经我公司向洛杉矶五矿索款,才得知该款早已由被告结算走了。请求判令被告返还欠付的货款410255.73美元,赔偿占用该款期间的利息311794.35美元,并承担本案诉讼费。@#
被告辩称:本案所涉焊管的发货人是中国五金矿产进出口公司北京分公司,这是我公司的下属单位,与原告是两个不同的单位。中国五金矿产进出口公司北京分公司与我公司之间是管理与被管理的关系,不存在法人之间的债权债务关系,原告无权代表该公司起诉我公司。本案所涉焊管的收货人是案外人洛杉矶五矿,该公司从未给我公司汇来过这笔货款,因此原告只能向洛杉矶五矿去主张权利。况且原告主张的这笔欠付货款发生于1988年,早已超过诉讼时效。法院应当驳回原告的诉讼请求。@#
@#
北京市第二中级人民法院经审理查明:1987年12月22日和1988年5月17日,被告中国五矿与案外人洛杉矶五矿分别签订了88MSP-003号、88MSP-004号两份合同。约定:卖方为中国五矿,买方为洛杉矶五矿,买卖焊管999吨,付款条件均为付款交单。@#
1988年9月,原告北京五矿受被告中国五矿的委托,依据中国五矿与案外人洛杉矶五矿签订的88MSP-003(订单号41-7845)、88MSP--004(订单号41-7846)号合同,向洛杉矶五矿出口焊管989.23吨,价值410255.73美元。@#
1995年8月16日,原告北京五矿致函案外人洛杉矶五矿,催要上述货款。洛杉矶五矿在回函中确认上述货款已经与被告中国五矿清帐,已经中国五矿的156万美元中包含了两份合同项下的货款。1997年8月15日,北京五矿致函中国五矿催要货款,中国五矿收到该函,但未付款。@#
另查明:原告北京五矿原系中国五金矿产进出口公司北京分公司,1989年1月1日变更为现名,变更名称前即具有法人资格,独立承担民事责任。@#
上述事实,有合同书、提单、发票、往来函件和工商行政管理文件等证实。@#
@#
北京市第二中级人民法院认为,原告北京五矿向法院提供了涉及本案争议标的的有关合同、提单,表明了北京五矿与被告中国五矿之间的委托关系,即中国五矿委托北京五矿发送中国五矿和案外人洛杉矶五矿所签买卖合同项下的焊管。事实上北京五矿已依约发送了焊管。《中华人民共和国民法通则》第八十四条第一款规定:“债是按照合同的约定或者依照法律的规定,在当事人之间产生的特定的权利和义务关系。享有权利的人是债权人,负有义务的人是债务人。”中国五矿虽未向北京五矿出具确认欠款的文件,但北京五矿与洛杉矶五矿之间的函件等证据材料相互印证,确认了中国五矿欠北京五矿货款的事实成立,可以证明双方之间存在着债权债务关系。且依买卖合同关系,此笔货款应由中国五矿与洛杉矶五矿结算。第八十四条第二款规定:“债权人有权要求债务人按照合同的约定或者依照法律的规定履行义务。”北京五矿依法向中国五矿追索货款,应予支持。中国五矿虽对欠款提出异议,但未能举出相应的证据,其辩称欠款不成立的理由,不予支持。北京五矿于1995年8月16日才得知货款已由中国五矿结算,曾于1997年8月15日向中国五矿索要货款。民法通则一百四十条规定:“诉讼时效因提起诉讼、当事人一方提出要求或者同意履行义务而中断。从中断时起,诉讼时效期间重新计算。”中国五矿辩称诉讼时效已过的理由不能成立。中国五矿应立即偿还北京五矿欠款,同时亦应赔偿迟延付款造成的损失。据此,北京市第二中级人民法院于1999年4月5日判决:一、中国五矿于判决生效后十日内偿付北京五矿410255.73美元;逾期给付,则按中国人民银行同期贷款最高利率加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息。二、中国五矿于判决生效后十日内偿付北京五矿欠款利息(自1995年8月16日起至付清之日止,按企业美元一年期存款利率计算)。案件受理费39867元,由中国五矿负担。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥500.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
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。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@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