Arrears reply 1 Respondent:
Address:
Respondents:
Address:
The respondent's specific reply to the case of arrears dispute sued by the respondent is as follows:
Matters to be defended: The respondent requests the people's court to reject the unreasonable and illegal claims of the respondent according to law.
Facts and reasons:
The respondent's statement that the respondent borrowed RMB _ _ _ _ _ ten thousand yuan from the respondent for family expenses was totally inconsistent with the actual situation. In fact, the respondent paid the salary to the respondent, and the respondent still owed the respondent RMB _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ten thousand yuan.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Project Party A promises to pay all the project funds of RMB _ _ _ _ ten thousand Yuan to the respondent within one month after the completion of the project. After the project was completed on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Party A claims that the respondent must sign a corresponding agreement to obtain the remaining project payment, requiring the respondent to take full responsibility for the unqualified acceptance of the project quality, and the owner to take full responsibility for the delayed payment or the deduction of the project payment. Under the coercion of Party A, the Respondent was forced to sign an obviously unfair agreement with Party A. After that, the Respondent Wang wrote an IOU, asking the Respondent to describe the salary of RMB _ _ _ _ _ _ _ received from the Respondent as arrears, and asked the Respondent to sign it, verbally indicating that the formal settlement of the Respondent's salary would wait until the acceptance.
To sum up, the loan claimed by the respondent in the lawsuit does not exist at all, and _ _ _ _ _ ten thousand yuan should be the salary paid by the respondent to the respondent. Now the respondent maliciously distorts the facts, taking advantage of the respondent's eagerness to get back the surplus salary, and coercing the respondent to sign a fair agreement, reversing the black and white IOUs. Ask the judge to observe the defendant's extremely dishonest behavior. I implore the court to reject all the claims of the defendant.
I am here to convey
Municipal people's court
Respondents:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Attachment: copy of the defense;
_ _ _ _ _ copies of evidence materials.
Reply to arrears 2 reply
A Seiko Equipment Co., Ltd. in Weifang filed a lawsuit with Kuiwen People's Court in Weifang on the grounds of unpaid machine payment, demanding that Beijing Printing Co., Ltd. pay the remaining payment. The defendant now puts forward the following defense opinions on the relevant facts and legal issues in this case:
1. The plaintiff failed to perform the contractual obligations as agreed, and the machine it provided had quality problems.
On March 20th, 20xx, on 2 1, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a supply agreement for a Seiko Equipment Co., Ltd., stipulating that the defendant would buy a brand offset press (model HG452B) (hereinafter referred to as the machine) from the plaintiff at a price of 950,000 yuan, and the quality requirements were the product technical specifications provided by the manufacturer, and it was agreed that the plaintiff would provide a machine that met the product execution standards. According to Article 60 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law, the parties shall fully perform their obligations as agreed. The parties shall abide by the principle of good faith and fulfill the obligations of notification, assistance and confidentiality according to the nature, purpose and trading habits of the contract. The plaintiff should deliver the machines that meet the contract to the defendant in strict accordance with the agreement, but the actual situation is that the plaintiff did not fulfill the agreement as agreed, and it did not provide qualified products. The machine delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant has serious quality problems.
Second, the plaintiff also failed to fulfill the warranty obligations of the products as agreed.
The supply agreement of a Seiko Equipment Co., Ltd. signed by the original defendant and the defendant stipulated that the warranty period of the equipment was one year. If the equipment fails, the plaintiff shall send technicians to repair it in time. Personnel and accessories should generally be in place within 48 hours (except in transit time), and notice must be given in advance after the agreed time. It also stipulates that the manufacturer has the right to ask for replacement of equipment with major quality problems that cannot be repaired during the warranty period. After the signing of the agreement, the defendant paid most of the payment to the plaintiff * * * according to the payment time agreed in the agreement. However, the machine provided by the plaintiff had problems after only three months of use. At the defendant's repeated requests, the plaintiff also carried out many repairs, but the machine was not repaired after many repairs, and the machine never worked normally. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "If a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or fails to meet the contract obligations, it shall bear the liabilities for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures or compensating for losses". If the plaintiff fails to provide the defendant with a machine that meets the product quality requirements as agreed in the agreement, it shall take remedial measures to repair the faulty machine so that it can operate normally. But in fact, the plaintiff's several repairs failed to repair the machine and make it run normally. The reason for the dispute in this case is that the plaintiff failed to fulfill the agreement of both parties to provide the defendant with products that meet the quality requirements first, which led to the quality problem that it could not operate normally in a short time, and failed to take timely and effective remedial measures to restore the machine to a good state, which led to the failure to use the machine normally afterwards, which affected the normal operation of the defendant and caused great losses.
The machine provided by the plaintiff to the defendant failed to pass the installation and debugging. According to the agreement of both parties, the defendant should not pay the remaining payment to the plaintiff.
According to Item 3 of Article 9 of the Supply Agreement of A Seiko Equipment Co., Ltd. signed by both parties, "After the installation and debugging are qualified, the final payment will be paid 350,000 yuan before 20xx every month", but the plaintiff failed to pass the installation and debugging after delivering the machine to the defendant, and the machine still could not operate normally after repeated repairs by the plaintiff. Based on the above agreement and relevant facts, the defendant failed to operate normally when the machine provided by the plaintiff broke down.
Four. The plaintiff failed to take measures to compensate the defendant for the unqualified products according to relevant laws.
Article 148 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law stipulates that "if the quality of the subject matter does not meet the quality requirements, so that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, the buyer may refuse to accept the subject matter or terminate the contract. If the buyer refuses to accept the subject matter or terminates the contract, the risk of damage or loss of the subject matter shall be borne by the seller. "
Article 111 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law * * * If the quality is not in conformity with the agreement, it shall be liable for breach of contract in accordance with the agreement of the parties. If the liability for breach of contract is not stipulated or clearly stipulated and cannot be determined according to the provisions of Article 61 of this Law, the injured party may reasonably choose to require the other party to bear the liability for breach of contract such as repair, replacement, rework, return, price reduction or remuneration according to the nature of the subject matter and the size of the loss. 、
Article 155 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law If the subject matter delivered by the seller does not meet the quality requirements, the buyer may demand to bear the liability for breach of contract in accordance with the provisions of Article 111 of this law.
Article 40 of the Product Quality Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "if the products sold do not meet the product standards indicated on the product or its packaging, the seller shall be responsible for repair, replacement and return; If losses are caused to consumers who purchase products, the seller shall compensate for the losses. "
In this case, the products provided by the plaintiff to the defendant had serious quality problems, and they could not be used normally after only three months of purchase. After repeated repairs by the defendant, the plaintiff could not restore the machine to normal. In this case, according to the provisions of the aforementioned laws and regulations, the plaintiff shall assume the obligation to repair, replace and return the machine to the defendant. However, the plaintiff refused to perform the above obligations at the defendant's repeated requests, which put the defendant in an extremely embarrassing situation: the plaintiff had fulfilled most of the obligations in strict accordance with the contract and paid most of the payment, but the purchased machine had serious quality problems and could not be used normally. Reject the plaintiff's request for return and exchange, and ask the plaintiff to repair it. However, the plaintiff failed to solve the problem after repeated maintenance, and the problem occurred three months after the purchase, which has continued to this day. The defendant has been negotiating a solution with the plaintiff with the utmost sincerity, but the plaintiff has taken the matter to court.
To sum up, the defendant was considered by a printing company in Beijing that the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant with qualified products according to the supply agreement of a Seiko Equipment Co., Ltd. signed by both parties, and its repair work could not make the machine work normally, resulting in the defendant being unable to continue to pay the remaining payment. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff Weifang Seiko Equipment Co., Ltd. is unreasonable and should be rejected according to law, so as to safeguard legal justice and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant.
I am here to convey
Weifang kuiwen people's court
Respondent: a printing company in Beijing.
Date, year and month
Defendant: * * *, male, Han nationality, born on * * of 19**, living in * * * * of Fujian Province, with ID number of * * * *.
Entrusted by the defendant * *, Fujian Rongcheng Law Firm appointed our lawyer Liu Hao as the agent ad litem. In order to clarify the facts and clarify the responsibilities, the following defense opinions are put forward for the reference of the collegial panel.
A, the plaintiff * * claims the loan except an IOU, there is no other corresponding loan facts to prove, can't prove that the loan facts do exist, so its claim should be rejected.
Article 2 10 of the Contract Law stipulates that the loan between natural persons takes effect when the lender provides the loan. However, there is no evidence in this case that the plaintiff has paid 2.3 million yuan to the defendant, let alone established a legal and effective loan relationship with the original defendant. The IOU only shows that there is a creditor-debtor relationship between the two parties, and it is not a real and effective loan relationship.
According to the first paragraph of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law: "The parties have the responsibility to provide evidence of their own claims." In this case, except for an IOU, the plaintiff could not provide evidence to prove the time and place when he delivered the loan to the defendant, and there was no witness testimony to prove the fact that the loan occurred. It cannot form a complete chain of evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff lent money to the defendant on * * * * of 20xx, so it should bear the adverse consequences of not being able to prove it, and the court should reject it.
Second, through the analysis of the factual reasons mentioned by the plaintiff, it shows that there is no real and effective loan relationship.
1. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant borrowed 2.3 million yuan from the plaintiff on * * * of 20xx because there was no money to open a shop and decorate it, but the actual situation was that the defendant started business on * * of 20xx, and what the plaintiff said was not true. The plaintiff also claimed that he asked the defendant to repay the loan in * * month of 20xx. This fact is not supported by corresponding evidence except the plaintiff's statement. According to Article 76 of Evidence, if the parties only state their claims and cannot submit other relevant evidence, their claims will not be supported.
The original defendant is neither a friend nor a business associate, so it is unreasonable for the original defendant to lend money to the defendant.
If there is a loan relationship between the original defendant and the plaintiff, the plaintiff should write a receipt to the defendant, not an iou.
Three, even if there is a loan relationship mentioned by the plaintiff, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the time limit for proof did not exceed two years, it also lost the right to win the case.
According to the law, the statutory limitation of action for IOUs is 2 years. If the debt indicates the date of settlement, the limitation of action shall be counted from the date of settlement indicated. If the date of repayment of the arrears is not specified, the limitation period of action shall be counted from the day after the debtor issues the arrears. The reason is that creditors should know that their rights have been infringed when debtors issue IOUs with no time limit for performance. Therefore, the obligee should claim the rights to the people's court within 2 years from the date of issuance of the iou. In this regard, the Supreme People's Court's "Reply on when the limitation period of action should be calculated when the debtor fails to perform the debt after the expiration of the agreed period" [Fa Fu (1994) No.35] points out: "The two parties originally agreed that the supplier should pay immediately after delivery, and the buyer has no money to pay after receiving the goods. With the consent of the supplier, the arrears without repayment date were written. According to Article 6544 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, if the supplier fails to claim rights after the limitation of action is interrupted, the limitation of action will be recalculated from the day after the supplier receives the written arrears from the buyer. "
However, the IOU in this case did not indicate the date when the IOU was issued, nor did it make any explanation on time. As the plaintiff, it should be proved that the statute of limitations of the IOU has not exceeded two years, otherwise, the court should reject the claim;
To sum up, it is a serious false accusation that the plaintiff sued the defendant to repay the nonexistent debt, asked the court to find out the truth and rejected the plaintiff's claim according to law.
To xxxx people's court.
Respondents:
date month year
Defendant * * *, male, born on, Han nationality, lives in xx District, xxx City.
Respondent * * *, female, born on, Han nationality, lives in xx District, xxx City.
Respondent * * *, male, born on, Han nationality, lives in xxx District, xxx City.
The respondent refuses to accept the civil judgment of (xxx) Huang Fang Shang Chu Zi No.1 and appeals. * * * Made by Fangzi District People's Court of Weifang City, and put forward the following defense opinions:
First, the trial procedure of the court of first instance is legal.
In this case, the court of first instance served relevant legal documents on the respondent according to the household registration address of the respondent and the service address submitted by the respondent to the court, and all these legal documents have been signed for. The court hearing time notified by the court of first instance is 9: 00 on June 1 1 xxx. After the respondent fails to appear in court at 9: 30, the judge checks online according to the mailing list number to confirm that the respondent has signed relevant legal documents, and summons the respondent to appear in court before 10: 30. It was not until half past ten that the case was tried in absentia. The trial procedure and delivery method of the case are not only legal, but also reasonable. If the respondent refuses to appear in court after being summoned by the court according to law, it shall be deemed as giving up the right of cross-examination and defense.
In addition, the plaintiffs * * * and * * in the first instance of this case are husband and wife, and they have property rights to the creditor's rights during the existence of the husband and wife relationship, so they can file a lawsuit with the plaintiff as * * *. There is only one defendant in the first instance of this case. On the whole, the original defendant in the first instance of this case is the same person, and the litigation object is the same. The court of first instance has jurisdiction over consolidated litigation, which belongs to the same litigation procedure. Therefore, the court of first instance's joint trial of this case conforms to the relevant laws and regulations and the purpose of saving judicial resources, and the defendant's appeal grounds cannot be established.
2. The Respondent fails to repay the relevant debts of the Respondent.
The creditor's rights claimed by the respondent in the first instance are divided into three parts: one is that * * * * borrows 30,000 yuan from * * * *; Second, * * * borrows from * * * 100000 yuan; Iii. Amount of materials in arrears 199382.42 yuan. Now described as follows:
1. The respondent borrowed 30,000 yuan from * * * * on June 10, xxx, and returned it before June 24th, xxx.
For this debt, the respondent shall repay the principal of RMB 30,000.00 Yuan and the interest calculated at the bank loan interest rate for the same period from June 25th, xxx.
2. The respondent borrowed 65,438 yuan +0xx 00 yuan from * * * on July 24th, xxx, and issued an iou. On August 24th, xxx, the respondent returned xxx00 yuan, with a deficit of 100000 yuan. It is agreed in the IOU that it will be repaid before October 24th, xxx/kloc-0, and it is agreed that it will bear the interest for six months 100000 yuan before October 24th, xxx.
The six-month interest on this debt is 5 100 yuan, which should be regarded as the agreement of both parties on the interest rate, and the monthly interest rate is 8.5‰. Therefore, the defendant should repay the principal of RMB 65,438+000,000 at the agreed monthly interest rate of 8.5‰ from July 25th, xxx.
3. The respondent owes the respondent the material fee 199382.42 yuan.
The Respondent and the Respondent have many business relationships of buying and selling polystyrene boards. During the period from June 3rd, xxx to August 4th, xxx, the Respondent * * * sold 39 batches of polystyrene boards to the Respondent, ***689.842 cubic meters, with the unit price of 235 yuan per cubic meter and the pricing amount of162/14.28 yuan. On February 22nd, xxx, the respondent transferred 65,438+043.339 cubic meters of polystyrene board to the respondent, and the unit price per cubic meter was 260 yuan, with an estimated price of 37,268.5438+04 yuan. The above sum * * * is RMB 199382.42 yuan, which has not been paid by the respondent.
The above facts are proved by evidence such as "Material Allocation Form" and "Outbound Form". According to the relevant laws and regulations, the respondent shall pay the principal 199382.42 yuan, as well as the interest calculated at the bank loan interest rate for the same period from the date of prosecution.
To sum up, the Respondent owes RMB * * * 30,000, RMB * * * 65,438+000,000, and RMB 65,438+099,382.42 to polystyrene board materials. According to the legal provisions and agreements, the respondent shall bear the interest of the loan of 30,000 yuan calculated at the bank loan interest rate of the same period from June 25, xxx; Loan 100000 yuan, with interest paid at the monthly interest rate of 8.5‰ from July 25, xxx; For the polystyrene board material of 199382.42 yuan, it shall bear the interest calculated according to the bank loan interest rate for the same period from the date of prosecution.
For the two sets of evidence materials submitted by the respondent at the trial of second instance, first, the respondent refused to appear in court at the trial of first instance, which should be regarded as giving up the right of proof; Secondly, these evidence materials have been formed and existed before the trial of the first instance, and they do not belong to the category of new evidence in the second instance. They have only now submitted to the court, obviously exceeding the time limit for proof. In principle, the respondent does not need to cross-examine and answer these evidence materials, but in order to explain the facts of the case more clearly, the respondent now makes the following reply for the reference of the collegial panel:
1. Details of bank card withdrawals submitted to it.
First of all, the evidence material is a copy, which cannot be checked with the original, and it is not stamped with the seal of the bank, so it has no probative force on the facts of the case and its authenticity is controversial. Secondly, from the details of the withdrawal, it can only show that LWY made two withdrawals of 65,438+00,000 yuan and 40,000 yuan on February 28th, xxx, but it can't show the whereabouts and uses of these two payments, nor can it prove that its claim to repay the loan owed by * * * * has nothing to do with the disputed facts in this case. Third, the date of withdrawal is February 28th, xxx, and the time of issuing IOUs for * * * * is June 10, xxx. The withdrawal is before the loan, even if the money is used to repay the arrears of * * * * *, it is also the arrears before February 28, xxx, and has nothing to do with the 30,000 yuan owed in this case. Therefore, the evidence material is not authentic and has nothing to do with this case, and the collegial panel is requested to reject it.
2. Four receipts were submitted to it.
The Respondent acknowledges that it has received RMB 65,438+09 on March 26, xxx, RMB 65,438+00,000 on April 26, xxx1October 6, and RMB * * * 40,000, which is an acknowledgement of the owed polystyrene.
On March 24th, xxx refused to accept the receipt of RMB 3,000, which was not the payment of the money owed in this case, but the payment of the first transfer payment agreed in the company transfer contract between the respondent and the respondent.
* * * * signed a company transfer contract with * * * *, and * * * paid the first payment of RMB xxx000 as agreed in the contract, and * * * issued a receipt of "RMB xxx000 paid by * * *", and handled the handover procedures of the enterprise. According to Article 5 of the company's assignment contract, * * * shall perform the first payment obligation on March 3 1 xxx, with the payment amount of 200,000 yuan. The description of the payment time, payment amount and payment content on the receipt is consistent with the agreement in the company's transfer contract, which is the payment of the company's transfer price, not the repayment of the arrears claimed in this case. Due to the lack of relevance and objectivity of the evidence, the collegial panel is requested to reject it.
* * * * and * * * actually have a long-term, multiple and diverse creditor-debtor relationship. * * * * has issued corresponding receipts, receipts and other vouchers for each payment or repayment of * * * *, and * * * will also recover or destroy relevant arrears vouchers at the same time of each payment. According to common sense and trading habits of both parties, if the respondent has paid the relevant arrears, it should take back the invoices, IOUs and other relevant documents. However, in this case, the respondent has no evidence to prove that it has fully fulfilled its payment obligations, so it should be responsible for paying the arrears complained by the respondent.
To sum up, the trial procedure of the court of first instance in this case is legal, the applicable law is correct, the facts of the respondent's arrears are clear and the evidence is indeed sufficient, and its long-term arrears have seriously violated the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent. We ask the court to adopt the above defense opinions and make a fair judgment according to law.
I am here to convey
Weifang intermediate people's court
Respondents:
Xxx year 1 month 7.