Civil second instance protest application

Please: Company A

Place of residence: .........

Legal representative: ........., the company manager

Respondent: Company B

Place of residence: ...........

Legal representative: ........, the company manager

Application request:

Applicant Company A to Huaibei Intermediate People's Court of Anhui Province [2011] Huaimin Erzhenzi....... and the People's Court of Lieshan District, Huaibei City, Anhui Province [2011] Lie Min Er Chu Zi... The .. judgment was dissatisfied and asked your court to protest in accordance with the trial supervision program.

Facts and reasons:

In 2019, Company A and Company B signed a coal supply contract, which stipulated: “The goods to the receiving place in Xuzhou Tongshan Port, including tax price 800 yuan / ton.”, “All goods before the goods to the receiving port are supplied by the supplier. Responsible, the cost after arrival is borne by the receiving party.", "After the first shipment, the settlement method is to pay the full payment in one lump sum to the receiving port within ten days."

Company B claims that the goods have been delivered and that Company A has not paid the goods. Company B provides evidence: 1. Coal supply contract and power of attorney; 2. Receipt receipt; 3. Raw material inspection report of Company A; 4. Certificate of company C on February 14, 2019; 5. Wu Weiwei 2019 Proof of February 14; 7, coal test list; 8, mobile payment invoice and mobile phone newsletter.

We have no objection to the validity of the coal supply contract and power of attorney. However, the evidence of the “receipt receipt” provided by the Southeast Transportation Company cannot prove that we received the goods, either formally or in substance. First, the name of the “receipt receipt” does not correspond to the receipt of the receipt of the goods; secondly, the person who fills the “Lishuang” on the “receipt receipt” cannot prove his identity; third, “receipt On the receipt, the signature of the payee cannot confirm the person; fourthly, there is no official seal of the company A on the “receipt receipt”. For a batch of goods of such a large amount, the receipt receipt form issued by the consignee is illegal, there is no official seal of the unit and the signature cannot be identified. This phenomenon deserves to be discussed.

The evidence "the proof of Wu Weiwei's February 14, 2019." First of all, whether there is such a person as Wu Weiwei cannot be confirmed. Secondly, it proves that it has received the port fee of Hengsheng Pipe Pile. Even if this person exists, it can be suspected that the function of this content is worthwhile. Furthermore, upon receipt of the port fee of Hengsheng Pipe Pile Co., Ltd., the contributor may be unable to verify the personnel of the company. In other words, the fact that the goods have reached the port cannot be proved, let alone the latter.

The evidence is “Certificate of Company C on February 14, 2019”, “Company C Settlement Receipt” and the court’s “Question of Zhu Congjing’s question”. First of all, "the company's C certificate issued on February 14, 2019" does not have the official seal of the company. Whether the evidence is legal or not is self-evident. Secondly, the evidence can only prove that the company is in contact with Liu, the coal is Liu’s control, and only the second person appears when the contact is made, that is, “the surname is high”. Why is this person only known to Liu himself? As to whether the goods are transported by the company to the company A, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of certification by this evidence alone. The transportation company signs the transportation contract with the person only by knowing which unit needs to transport the goods in the mouth of the contact person. Is it true that the company asked them to deliver the goods? They will not ask the contact person to take the business license of their own unit. Or other relevant proofs to prove their identity. Therefore, it is even more unreasonable for the company C's settlement vouchers to pay the company. Furthermore, the company's C-clearing receipt was issued on October 4, 2019, and the date of the "receipt receipt" was October 2, 2019, and it was said that the "receipt receipt" did not exist except the date. Dissent, it is completely illogical to sign the receipt of the goods before receiving the goods, and it is impossible to understand. The above evidences are contradictory and have no authenticity and should not be adopted in accordance with the law.

The evidence is “Corporate A's Raw Material Inspection Report” and “Coal Chemical Inspection Form”. First of all, the date of “coal inspection” is September 29, 2019. To prove that coal meets the quality standards, Huaibei Southeast Automobile Transportation Co., Ltd. stated that it is not necessary to tell the other party in the first and second trials. The inspection results do not tell the contractor that its inspection What is the meaning? Secondly, “Corporate A's raw material inspection report” on October 10 and October 3, 2019 indicated that the coal quality was unqualified. The contract stipulated: “When the receiving port has any objection to the quality of coal acceptance or other abnormal conditions, The coal should be piled up separately and notified to the supplier within 48 hours of receiving the coal. The supplier shall send a joint sample to the Xuzhou Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision for re-inspection within 48 hours and use this data as the final settlement basis. Otherwise, it is considered as no objection." If we do not receive the goods, we know that the goods do not meet the requirements and the other party fails to perform the contract within the time limit. In consideration of the good faith, the quality of the other party may be unqualified, and the qualified coal will be qualified. Contact us. The other party now uses this as evidence to express the following views on this evidence. First of all, the contract clearly stipulates that the goods arrive at the port and has an objection to the quality of the coal. The supplier is informed within 48 hours. Our earliest inspection of the quality of coal was on October 3, 2019, and the date of the “receipt receipt” was 2019. On the 2nd of the month, we said that even if we know that the goods have arrived in Hong Kong, we will contact the transportation company to return the goods to the company and return the goods one day after the goods are returned. Whether the goods meet the requirements, as a normal person can not understand this behavior, and the fact that the other party advocated in the court did not give a reasonable explanation. To take a step back, even if the goods are pulled back to the company, the inspection on October 3, 2019 will not meet the requirements. The supplier will not be notified for more than 48 hours, and will wait another week after October 10 to conduct another inspection. It is obviously unreasonable to put the goods at home and wait for the responsibility to pay the price of the goods that meet the requirements. It is clear from the above that the evidence provided by Company B is contradictory and cannot be justified.

Evidence "Mobile payment invoices and mobile phone newsletters". The signature of the payee on the “receipt receipt” cannot determine the person. The content of the mobile phone newsletter does not prove the validity of any facts in the case. The evidence is not relevant to the case.

In summary, most of the evidence provided by Company B is not legal and probative, and contradictory, unable to prove its content. The People's Court of Lieshan District of Huaibei City and the Intermediate People's Court of Huaibei City do not follow the rules of evidence and do not respect the objective. The fact that there is a law that does not depend on the wrong judgment of the company A to pay the company's B payment, etc., is obviously inappropriate. Therefore, the applicant applied for the Huaibei Municipal People's Procuratorate to request the Anhui Provincial People's Procuratorate to appeal to the Huaibei Intermediate People's Court against the case, to safeguard the fairness and dignity of the law and the procuratorate, and to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant.
Sincerely

Huaibei City People's Procuratorate

Applicant: Company A