"President Zheng, there is a pennant and a letter of thanks here. Recently, the clerk took the courier that had just been delivered and happily said to Zheng Tiancheng, vice president of the Second Trial Supervision Division of the Qiannan Intermediate People's Court.
"The three-year lawsuit is straight, and a mirror is a clear judgment of right and wrong. The 14 words on the pennant are particularly eye-catching, and the words are short and the love is long. What kind of story is behind this pennant?
It turned out that this was a dispute over the rent arrears for nearly 10 years, and it was the hardship of repeatedly defending rights for three years.
When the names of the parties were seen, some images from the trial of the case resurfaced in the judge's mind.
"The court is reminded that the statute of limitations has expired from 1 August 2013 to 31 July 2014 and the defendant has the right to refuse to pay this lease fee. Moreover, the recording of the call provided by the plaintiff cannot prove that the statute of limitations in this case was interrupted. ”
"We have never stopped, we have been asserting our rights, where is the statute of limitations expiring?"
When the second-instance trial of the construction equipment leasing contract dispute case between the plaintiff and a construction equipment leasing company in Guizhou against the defendants Lu, Zeng, Luo and Li, the attorneys of both parties debated fiercely around whether the statute of limitations had expired.
Defendants Lu, Zeng, Luo, Li and others jointly contracted part of a construction project, due to the needs of engineering construction, in June 2011, Zeng and Li leased 3 tower cranes to the plaintiff Guizhou construction equipment leasing company, and signed the "Tower Crane Leasing Contract", in the contract, the two parties agreed on the tower crane model and the crane tower entry and exit fees, rent, labor costs, etc., and made it clear that all expenses should be settled before the end of the project, and the liability for breach of contract was also agreed.
On July 31, 2013, the plaintiff, a construction equipment leasing company in Guizhou, dismantled the crane tower and left the site. On October 14, the company's statement showed that after deducting the 93,000 yuan of rent received, 590,000 yuan remained unsettled. However, the settlement statement only had the seal of a construction equipment leasing company in Guizhou, and Zeng and Li did not sign and confirm it, which also became a point of contention between the two parties. In the years that followed, the two sides seemed to enter a period of silence.
Until July 19, 2018, Shi, an employee of a construction equipment leasing company in Guizhou, communicated with Li about the cost of the tower crane of the project by phone.
"The matter of the tower crane of this project, you haven't got a result so far, and my brother has to settle the account, so let's tie the account. Shi said on the phone.
"We are all upright people, which one has what kind of cost now, we are also being put aside, and we are also waiting for the judicial channel to deal with it, and when the time comes, everyone should be a lot of ......"
"Listen to me, we have to admit this matter today. In short, we have millions of people who have started in the 'drought' there, and when it is dealt with, we will all have to put this matter in order to be happy. ”
Li replied on the phone. It was precisely this phone call that became the most critical focus of the two sides in the subsequent series of rights protection.
In July 2020, the plaintiff, a construction equipment leasing company in Guizhou, filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting the court to order the defendants Lu, Zeng, Luo, Li and others to pay the arrears of tower crane leasing fees of 590,000 yuan and liquidated damages in accordance with the law, and provided the above-mentioned call recordings to prove that the company has always claimed rights and interests, but has not sued for the purpose of valuing harmony.
Defendants Lu, Zeng, Luo, and Li argued that the statute of limitations had expired in the case, and judging from the recording of the call, it was not heard that the defendant Li and others were required to pay, and that the payment amount and payment method were clearly discussed, and that Li did not explicitly agree to continue to perform the debt on the phone, as well as the amount, time, or hope to extend the debt performance. The defendant claimed that the meaning of the call was inconsistent and unclear, and no new repayment agreement was formed.
The court of first instance held that this dispute was a civil dispute that occurred before the implementation of the Civil Code, and that the laws and judicial interpretations at that time were applicable, so according to the General Principles of the Civil Law, the statute of limitations was one year. Therefore, the statute of limitations period in this case was from August 1, 2013 to August 1, 2014, and during this period, the plaintiff, a construction equipment leasing company in Guizhou, did not have any evidence to prove that it had claimed a claim against the defendant, so the limitation period for the claim expired on August 1, 2014.
Since the plaintiff, a construction equipment leasing company in Guizhou, did not provide other evidence to prove that the statute of limitations had been interrupted, the court of first instance adopted the defendant's opinion, found that the statute of limitations had expired, and rejected the litigation claim of the plaintiff, a construction equipment leasing company in Guizhou, in accordance with the law.
After the first-instance judgment, the plaintiff was dissatisfied and appealed to the Qiannan Prefecture Intermediate People's Court.
"This case is an ordinary case for us, but for a company, it may be a matter of survival. In the trial investigation, the parties will choose self-interested factual statements, and many key facts require the undertaker to slowly restore the truth in the process of peeling off the cocoon, so as to make a judgment based on the facts and in accordance with the law. Zheng Tiancheng, the judge in charge of the second instance of the case, said that in this case, the two parties had no objection to the fees owed, and the court of first instance found that the limitation period was also in line with the legal basis.
The collegial panel held that the core issue in the case was whether the defendant had the intention to agree to repay the loan after the expiration of the statute of limitations. To determine this fact, the key lies in whether Li recognized the debt and agreed to perform during the phone call between Shi and Li on July 19, 2018.
In response to the only recorded evidence of the telephone call, the defendant's attorney asserted in court that the defendant did not explicitly mention the key words of wanting to perform the debt, being willing to perform the debt, or wishing to extend the period of time in the phone call, so there was no fact that the limitation period was restarted.
"We have to stand in the perspective of the person concerned, from the scene and context of the call at that time. In the second instance, the collegial panel stated in the collegial case that judging from the recording of the call, Li, as the debtor, was clear about the purpose of the call from Shi, an employee of the creditor, and that Li repeatedly expressed that there were financial difficulties during the call, so he could not pay it for the time being, and also recognized the fact that the plaintiff was owed rent, and proposed that "when it is dealt with, everyone should be a lot, there will be a lot", which clearly expressed the intention of requesting a postponement of rent payment. Although neither party on the phone explicitly mentioned the specific amount of rent, the performance period, etc., it did not affect the determination that Li agreed to perform the debt during the phone call.
On October 1, 2017, the General Provisions of the Civil Law came into effect, which means that in the call on July 19, 2018, after Li agreed to perform the debt, the statute of limitations for the plaintiff's claim to claim rights will start to run for three years. In the end, the Qiannan Prefecture Intermediate People's Court corrected the errors of the original trial in the determination of facts and the application of law in accordance with the law, and ruled in favor of the plaintiff's claim, limiting the defendant to pay the rent of 590,000 yuan within the time limit specified by the court and pay the corresponding liquidated damages.
After the second-instance judgment, both parties have settled the lawsuit and accepted the judgment.
Because of the statute of limitations, a simple dispute has been brought to court several times.
"The statute of limitations period is prescribed by law, and the fact that the statute of limitations period has been restarted in this case should be determined in accordance with law. When talking about this case after receiving the pennant, Zheng Tiancheng said that the judgment of the case fully respects the autonomy of the will of both parties to the contract, protects the value of the integrity of the non-breaching party, highlights the meaning of the spirit of the contract, and maintains the most basic public order and good customs of the society, such as debt repayment, and also escorts honest and trustworthy enterprises.
Statute of Limitations for Civil Actions
The statute of limitations for civil litigation refers to the system whereby the right holder does not exercise its rights after the statutory time limit, and its right to win the lawsuit will be extinguished in accordance with the law.
Article 188 of the Civil Code provides that the statute of limitations for filing a request to the people's court for protection of civil rights is three years. Where the law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.
The limitation period is calculated from the date on which the right holder knows or should know that the right has been damaged and the obligor. Where the law provides otherwise, follow those provisions. However, if more than 20 years have elapsed since the date on which the rights were infringed, the people's courts will not grant protection, and where there are special circumstances, the people's courts may decide to extend the rights holder on the basis of the right holder's application.
Guizhou Daily Tianyan News reporter Chen Jingxiong
Edited by Luo Hua
Second Instance Cheng Xing
Third trial: Ouyang Hainan