đá bóng trực tiếpPrecedent no. 09/2016/AL on commercial case concerning dispute over purchase agreement

- Situation 1:

đá bóng trực tiếp purchasing agreement is violated because đá bóng trực tiếp Seller fails to deliver or fails to deliver adequate goods to đá bóng trực tiếp Buyer, leading to đá bóng trực tiếp fact that đá bóng trực tiếp Seller is obliged to refund đá bóng trực tiếp advance and interest on late payment.

- Legal solution 1:

In this case, đá bóng trực tiếp interest on late payment shall be calculated according to đá bóng trực tiếp average overdue interest on đá bóng trực tiếp market equivalent to đá bóng trực tiếp average overdue interest of at least three local banks at đá bóng trực tiếp payment time (first-instance trial), unless otherwise agreed or regulated by law.

- Situation 2:

Liability to pay fines, compensation for damage arises out of đá bóng trực tiếp purchasing agreement.

- Legal solution 2:

In this case, đá bóng trực tiếp party who is obliged to pay fines, compensation for damage is not required to pay đá bóng trực tiếp interest on such fines or compensation for damage.

According to đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit petition dated July 7, 2007, đá bóng trực tiếp request for change in lawsuit petition dated October 10, 2007, available documents in đá bóng trực tiếp case file and representation of đá bóng trực tiếp representative of đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff:

On October 3, 2006, Viet Y Steel Joint-Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as Viet Y Steel Company) conclude đá bóng trực tiếp Economic Agreement No. 03/2006-HDKT with Hung Yen Metal Joint-Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as Hung Yen Metal Company); represented by Mr. Nguyen Van Tinh - Deputy Director General according to đá bóng trực tiếp Letter of Authorization No. 621 dated September 10, 2005 of đá bóng trực tiếp Director General. Following this Agreement, Viet Y Steel Company (Party A) buys continuous casting billets CTS-5SP/PS, bulk cargo, in accordance with đá bóng trực tiếp standard GOST 380-94 of Hung Yen Metal Company (Party B) with đá bóng trực tiếp quantity of 3,000 tonne +/- 5%, unit price: VND 6,750,000 per tonne; delivery time: from October 25 to October 31, 2006; contract value: VND 20,250,000,000 +/-5%.

On October 4, 2006, Viet Y Steel Company transferred full VND 20,250,000,000 to Hung Yen Metal Company, as stated in đá bóng trực tiếp payment order at Vietcombank Hai Duong.  Hung Yen Metal Company also delivered Viet Y Steel Company 2,992.820 tonne of billets, there is still lack of 7.180 tonne equivalent to VND 48,465,000.

On December 20, 2006, đá bóng trực tiếp two Parties kept concluding đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 05/2006-HDKT, in which Mr. Le Van Manh - Deputy Director General represented Hung Yen Metal Company (according to đá bóng trực tiếp Letter of Authorization No. 1296/UQ/HYM of đá bóng trực tiếp Director General). Following this Agreement, Viet Y Steel Company bought 5,000 tonne of billets (with similar standard and quality mentioned in đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 03), unit price: VND 7,290,000 per tonne (including VAT and freight charge). Contract value: VND 36,450,000,000 +/- 5%; delivery time from January 18, 2007 to January 31, 2007; Viet Y Steel Company would advance VND 500,000,000 to Hung Yen Metal Company as soon as practicable after concluding đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement; đá bóng trực tiếp remaining sum shall be paid in two installments after Viet Y Steel Company receives đá bóng trực tiếp goods.   đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement also stipulates that Hung Yen Metal Company shall be obliged to pay 2% of đá bóng trực tiếp contract value if it fails to deliver đá bóng trực tiếp good with predetermined type or fails to deliver đá bóng trực tiếp good. As stated by đá bóng trực tiếp representative of Viet Y Steel Company, on December 21, 2006, Viet Y Steel Company transferred Hung Yen Metal Company VND 500,000,000 of advance, but Hung Yen Metal Company failed to perform đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement without any reason.

On đá bóng trực tiếp same date, Viet Y Steel Company also concluded đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement no. 06/2006 with Hung Yen Metal Company (represented by Mr. Le Van Manh - Deputy Director General) to buy 3,000 tonne of billets from Hung Yen Metal Company, with đá bóng trực tiếp unit price of VND 7,200,000 per tonne. Total contract value is VND 21,600,000,000; delivery time: from January 5, 2007 to January 15, 2007.

On December 22, 2006, Viet Y Steel Company transferred full VND 21,600,000,000 to Hung Yen Metal Company as stated in đá bóng trực tiếp payment order at Techcombank Hung Yen Branch, but Hung Yen Metal Company just delivered to Viet Y Steel Company 2,989.890 tonne of billets, there was still lack of 7.640 tonne, equivalent to VND 55,008,000.

On February 1, 2007, Viet Y Steel Company also concluded đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 01/2007 with Hung Yen Metal Company (represented by Mr. Le Van Manh - Deputy Director General) to buy 5,000 tonne of billets from Hung Yen Metal Company, with đá bóng trực tiếp unit price of VND 7,800,000 per tonne. Total contract value is VND 39,000,000,000 +/- 5%. During đá bóng trực tiếp performance of Agreement, Viet Y Steel Company transferred Hung Yen Metal Company VND 27,710,000,000 and Hung Yen Metal Company delivered to Viet Y Steel Company 3,906.390 tonne of billets, equivalent to VND 30,469,842,000. đá bóng trực tiếp quantity of billets which Hung Yen Metal Company has not delivered to Viet Y Steel Company is 928.255538 tonne, equivalent to VND 7,420,158,000.

Viet Y Steel Company has requested Hung Yen Metal Company to perform đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement many times in writing, but Hung Yen Metal Company still fails to perform it, Viet Y Steel Company has no choice but to buy billets from other manufacturers to maintain its production and business.

Because Hung Yen Metal Company violated đá bóng trực tiếp Agreements, Viet Y Steel Company filed a lawsuit, claiming Hung Yen Metal Company to make payment and pay compensation for damage due to breach of delivery obligation in đá bóng trực tiếp Agreements No. 03/2006, 05/2006, 06/2006, 01/2007 up to đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit time is VND 12,874,298,683, including đá bóng trực tiếp price of 1,777,020 kg of billets = VND 11,181,662,503, đá bóng trực tiếp fine of VND 1,316,490,480, overdue interest of VND 376,145,700.

At đá bóng trực tiếp first instance court hearing on September 3, 2009, đá bóng trực tiếp representative of đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff requests Hung Yen Metal Company to pay Viet Y Steel Company up to đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance trial date VND 28,145,956,647 and compels Hung Yen Metal Company to issue a VAT invoice to Viet Y Steel Company equivalent to đá bóng trực tiếp quantity of goods delivered under đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 06/2006 of VND 21,544,992,000 and under đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 01/2007 of VND 30,469,842,000.

Representation of đá bóng trực tiếp representative of đá bóng trực tiếp defendant in đá bóng trực tiếp record of deposition, record of reconciliation, record of court hearing:

When Hung Yen Metal Company concluded đá bóng trực tiếp said Agreements with Viet Y Steel Company, Mrs. Le Thi Ngoc Lan was still đá bóng trực tiếp Director General and Mr. Le Van Dung (Mrs. Lan’s husband) was still business consultant. On March 22, 2007, Mrs. Le Thi Ngoc Lan sold all of her shares at Hung Yen Metal Company to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Toan and Mrs. Toan has held đá bóng trực tiếp position of Acting Director General since April 2, 2007. In đá bóng trực tiếp agreement on division of marital property between Mr. Le Van Dung and Mrs. Le Thi Ngoc Lan and đá bóng trực tiếp commitment on debts of đá bóng trực tiếp Company, Mr. Le Van Dung acknowledged all debts of Hung Yen Metal Company incurred before April 1, 2007. As for đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit of Viet Y Steel Company claiming compensation for damage in Agreements No. 03/2006, 05/2006, 06/2006, 01/2007, Hung Yen Metal Company denies them because such debt liability is taken over by Mr. Dung, Mrs. Lan and old leaders and managers of Hung Yen Metal Company. Hung Yen Metal Company has tried to work officially with Mr. Dung in order for Mr. Dung to repay đá bóng trực tiếp debt directly to Viet Y Steel Company or Mr. Dung will repay đá bóng trực tiếp debt to Hung Yen Metal Company then Hung Yen Metal Company will forward it to Viet Y Steel Company.

Hung Yen Metal Company requests đá bóng trực tiếp Court to re-consider đá bóng trực tiếp validity of đá bóng trực tiếp Agreements No. 03/2006, 05/2006, 06/2006, 01/2007 which were signed by Mr. Tinh, Mr. Manh on behalf of Hung Yen Metal Company in this case and consider liability of Mr. Dung, Mr. Manh, Mr. Tinh, Mrs. Lan for đá bóng trực tiếp debts claimed by Viet Y Steel Company. At đá bóng trực tiếp first session of first instance court hearing, Hung Yen Metal Company basically concurs with Viet Y Steel Company in data associated with performance of agreement, but does not agree with đá bóng trực tiếp financial data because đá bóng trực tiếp debts have not been collated; đá bóng trực tiếp amount of interests needs to be re-calculated, and đá bóng trực tiếp defendant does not agree with đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 05 because đá bóng trực tiếp two Parties agreed to cancel đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement and transferred VND 500,000,000 which Viet Y Steel Company advanced to perform đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 01/2007, so Hung Yen Metal Company does not violate đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 05.

Representation of person with relevant rights and obligations Mrs. Le Thi Ngoc Lan: In 2004, she and her husband bought đá bóng trực tiếp shares of Mr. Nguyen Luong Tuan and Mr. Nguyen Van Thanh at Hung Yen Metal Company when đá bóng trực tiếp Company was being in its growth stage. Since then, Mrs. Lan became Director General cum President of đá bóng trực tiếp Board of Directors and Mr. Dung (Mrs. Lan’s husband) acted as business consultant of Hung Yen Metal Company. Due to marital conflicts, on September 5, 2005, Mrs. Lan and Mr. Dung made an agreement on division of marital property at Hong Ha Lawyer’s Office (member of Bar Association of Hanoi City). According to đá bóng trực tiếp agreement, Mrs. Lan will own đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 250 Ba Trieu Street, Mr. Dung will own total VND 48 billion which are their shares at Hung Yen Metal Company but Mr. Dung is also obliged to repay đá bóng trực tiếp debt of Hung Yen Metal Company during formation of Hung Tai Rolling Steel Factory (of Hung Yen Metal Company). Not owning shares anymore and đá bóng trực tiếp shares were given to Mr. Dung, Mrs. Lan granted power to Mr. Tinh, and then Mr. Manh to run đá bóng trực tiếp Company. Mrs. L still be General Director despite not having shares any longer, but in fact đá bóng trực tiếp real authority has been exercised by Mr. Dung (Mrs. Lan’s husband), Mr. Tinh and Mr. Manh . Mrs. Lan did not transfer đá bóng trực tiếp debt and hand over đá bóng trực tiếp Director General position to Mrs. Toan until July 2007. Mrs. Lan also certifies that Mr. Manh and Mr. Tinh (they were both Deputy Director of Hung Yen Metal Company) concluded economic agreements with Viet Y Steel Company with regular authorization of Mrs. Lan. But only Mr. Dung transferred rights and obligations to Mrs. Toan, Mrs. Lan asserts that she does not have debt liability to Viet Y Steel Company.

Representation of person with relevant rights and obligations - Mr. Le Van Dung: Although she and her husband divided marital property and Mr. Dung has đá bóng trực tiếp right own đá bóng trực tiếp shares of Hung Yen Metal Company but he only acts as a business consultant without having power to conclude any economic agreement or sign any statement, so he does not take over any liability. Mr. Dung does not concur with Hung Yen Metal Company that he is liable to repay đá bóng trực tiếp debt which is inherently incurred by Hung Yen Metal Company and Mrs. Toan. Mr. Dung certifies that he signed a commitment with Mrs. Nguyen Thi Toan on April 1, 2007. This commitment indicates đá bóng trực tiếp total debt for two parties to settle and has personal meaning between Mr. Dung and Mrs. Toan as đá bóng trực tiếp basis for đá bóng trực tiếp debt settlement, transfer, but there are no share purchase between him and Mrs. Toan. Two parties have not concluded any agreement on share purchase, and he does not know đá bóng trực tiếp share transfer between Mrs. Lan and Mrs. Toan. With respect to đá bóng trực tiếp Viet Y Steel Company’s lawsuit against Hung Yen Metal Company claiming đá bóng trực tiếp repayment of debt under đá bóng trực tiếp agreement, Mr. Dung claims that Hung Yen Metal Company, from đá bóng trực tiếp legal aspect, has to take on liability with juridical person status. Mr. Dung shall not take on liability to any customer or partner, he will only be held accountable to Hung Yen Metal Company. Mr. Dung applies for absence in every court hearing.

In đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Civil Judgment No. 01/2007/KDTM-ST dated November 14, 2007, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province judged: “Compel Hung Yen Metal Company to pay Viet Y Steel Company for đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 03 dated October 3, 2006; No. 05 dated December 20, 2006; No. 06 dated December 20, 2006 and No. 01 dated February 1, 2007, totaling: VND 24.674.428.500.” In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance decided đá bóng trực tiếp court fee and announced đá bóng trực tiếp right to appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp litigants.

On November 27, 2007, Hung Yen Metal Company filed an appeal.

đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Judgment No. 120/2008/KDTM-PT dated June 18, 2008, đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Court of People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City decided: “Quash đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Civil Judgment No. 01/2007/KDTM-ST dated November 14, 2007 of đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province. Refer đá bóng trực tiếp case file to People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province to re-try đá bóng trực tiếp case as per đá bóng trực tiếp law” with đá bóng trực tiếp following reason: đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance has not taken depositions of Mrs. Lan, Mr. Dung, Mrs. Toan, Mr. Tinh, Mr. Manh and determined procedural participants, then clarify which person is liable for repaying đá bóng trực tiếp debt for Viet Y Steel Company; moreover, documents such acknowledgement of indebtedness, payment receipt of Mr. Dung, letter of authorization to run đá bóng trực tiếp company, etc. are all copies without legal authentication or comparison with originals held by đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance.

In đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Civil Judgment No. 09/2008/KDTM-ST dated October 23, 2008, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province judged: “Compel Hung Yen Metal Company to pay Viet Y Steel Company for đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 03 dated October 3, 2006; No. 05 dated December 20, 2006; No. 06 dated December 20, 2006 and No. 01 dated February 1, 2007, totaling: VND 31.902.035.179,56.”

On November 5, 2008, Hung Yen Metal Company filed an appeal.

đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Judgment No. 120/2008/KDTM-PT dated June 18, 2008, đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Court of People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City decided: “1. Quash đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Judgment No. 09/2008/KDTM-ST dated October 23, 2008 of People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province on “dispute over purchase agreement” between Hung Yen Metal Company and Viet Y Steel Company. 2. Refer đá bóng trực tiếp case file to đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance for re-trial of đá bóng trực tiếp case, with đá bóng trực tiếp following reason: Mr. Dinh Van Vi, Director General, only filed a lawsuit against Hung Yen Metal Company for claim of VND 12,874,298,683 but his authorized representative continued amending đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit petition, which goes beyond đá bóng trực tiếp scope of lawsuit and violates Point 1 Clause 2 Article 164 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code and Resolution No.02/2006/NQ-HDTPdated May 12, 2006 of Council of Justices of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court.  Although all amending lawsuit petitions made by đá bóng trực tiếp representative are not unaccordant with đá bóng trực tiếp law, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance accepted them all. This is a serious violation of civil procedures, so đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal shall not consider đá bóng trực tiếp appeal section concerning Hung Yen Metal Company.

In đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Civil Judgment No. 18/2009/KDTM-ST dated September 3, 2009, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province judged: “1. Compel Hung Yen Metal Company to pay Viet Y Steel Company for 4 economic agreements: No. 03/2006 dated October 3, 2006; No. 05/2006 dated December 2, 2006; No. 06/2006 dated December 20, 2006 and No. 01/2007 dated February 1, 2007, totaling VND 28,145,956,647 and issued đá bóng trực tiếp VAT invoice to Viet Y Steel Company for đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 06/2006 equivalent to VND 21,544,992,000 and đá bóng trực tiếp Agreement No. 01/2007 equivalent to VND 30,469,842,000”. In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance decided đá bóng trực tiếp court fee, judgment enforcement and announced đá bóng trực tiếp appeal right to litigants as per đá bóng trực tiếp law.

On September 23, 2009, Hung Yen Metal Company filed an appeal.

đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Judgment No. 63/KDTM-PT dated April 5, 2010, đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Court of Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi decided: “Quash đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Civil Judgment No. 18/2009/KDTM-ST dated September 3, 2009 of đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province. Refer đá bóng trực tiếp case file to People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province to re-try đá bóng trực tiếp case as per đá bóng trực tiếp law”.

On July 25, 2010, People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province sent đá bóng trực tiếp Dispatch No. 110/2010/CV-TA, requesting Chief Justice of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court to review đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Judgment under cassation procedure.

In đá bóng trực tiếp Appeal No. 17/2012/KDTM-TN dated June 25, 2012, đá bóng trực tiếp Chief Justice of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court requested đá bóng trực tiếp Council of Judges of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court to review đá bóng trực tiếp case under cassation procedure to quash đá bóng trực tiếp above Appellate Judgment No. 63/KDTM-PT dated April 5, 2010 of đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi; refer đá bóng trực tiếp case to đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi city for re-conduct đá bóng trực tiếp appellate trial as per đá bóng trực tiếp law.

At đá bóng trực tiếp cassation trial court hearing, đá bóng trực tiếp representative of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Procuracy consents to đá bóng trực tiếp appeal made by đá bóng trực tiếp Chief Justice of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court.

1. From October 2006 to February 2007, Viet Y Steel Company and Hung Yen Metal Company concluded 4 economic agreements (No. 03/2006-HDKT dated October 3, 2006, No. 05/2006-HDKT, No. 06/2006-HDKT dated December 20, 2006 and No. 01/2007-HDKT dated February 1, 2007).

When đá bóng trực tiếp agreements were concluded, Mrs. Le Thi Ngoc was still đá bóng trực tiếp legal representative of Hung Yen Metal Company (according to đá bóng trực tiếp 5th amending business registration certificate dated August 12, 2005 and 6th amending business registration certificate dated July 6, 2007 of Hung Yen Metal Company and decision on change in business registration No. 140/QD-HDCD dated July 2, 2007 of Hung Yen Metal Company). In đá bóng trực tiếp Letter of Authorization No. 621/UQ-KKHY dated September 10, 2005, Mrs. Lan “1. Authorize đá bóng trực tiếp administration of Hung Yen Metal Company to Mr. Nguyen Van Tinh. 2. Mr. Nguyen Van Tinh takes responsibilities for: a/ Representing đá bóng trực tiếp Company in relations with banks, organizations or individuals and other relevant agencies to maintain ordinary course of business; b/ On behalf of đá bóng trực tiếp Company conducting civil, economic and commercial transactions within đá bóng trực tiếp line of business of đá bóng trực tiếp Company..".. On November 20, 2006, Mrs. Lan made a Letter of Authorization No. 1296/UQ/HYM to authorize administration of đá bóng trực tiếp Company to Mr. Le Van Manh (with content similar to đá bóng trực tiếp one made for Mr. Tinh).

đá bóng trực tiếp Letters of Authorization made for Mr. Nguyen Van Tinh and Mr. Le Van Manh (Deputy General Director) to sign economic agreements are totally legal. Mr. Tinh and Mr. Manh signed đá bóng trực tiếp agreements in đá bóng trực tiếp name of đá bóng trực tiếp juridical person, not in their personal names, so they do not have relevant rights and obligations in đá bóng trực tiếp case.  Therefore, it could not determine that Mr. Tinh and Mr. Manh as persons with relevant rights and obligations in this case as requested by đá bóng trực tiếp defendant or as judged by đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal.

đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal, based on đá bóng trực tiếp agreement on division of marital property between Mrs. Le Thi Ngoc Lan and Mr. Le Van Dung and acknowledgement of indebtedness of Company between Mr. Le Van Dung and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Toan, determines that Mr. Dung, Mrs. Lan, Mrs. Toan are persons with relevant rights and obligations. This is not a right decision. Because while đá bóng trực tiếp division of marital property was made between Mr. Le Van Dung and Mrs. Le Thi Ngoc Lan; đá bóng trực tiếp agreement on repayment of debts was made between Mrs. Nguyen Thi Toan and Mr. Le Van Dung, which đá bóng trực tiếp internal affair of Hung Yen Metal Company. đá bóng trực tiếp acknowledgement of indebtedness between Mr. Dung and Mrs. Toan does not gain đá bóng trực tiếp consent of đá bóng trực tiếp obligee Viet Y Steel Company. Clause 1 Article 315 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2005 governs: “đá bóng trực tiếp obligor may transfer a civil obligation to a substitute obligor, if it is so consented by đá bóng trực tiếp obligee”. During đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit settlement, Mr. Dung and Mrs. Lan have made depositions about agreement on marital property, conclusion of agreements with Viet Y Steel Company, responsibilities of Hung Yen Metal Company in fulfilling obligations under đá bóng trực tiếp agreement; Mr. Dung also applies for absence from đá bóng trực tiếp court hearing. So, it is unnecessary to take depositions from Mr. Dung and Mrs. Lan and conduct cross-examination as determined by đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal. Therefore, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal was wrong when quashing First Instance Judgment No. 18/2009/KDTM-ST dated September 3, 2009 of People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province and referring đá bóng trực tiếp case file to People’s Court of Bac Ninh province for re-trial.

2. With reference to đá bóng trực tiếp content of đá bóng trực tiếp case: During đá bóng trực tiếp performance of agreements, Viet Y Steel Company transferred money through payment order to Hung Yen Metal Company; Hung Yen Metal Company also delivered đá bóng trực tiếp good to Viet Y Steel Company (according to đá bóng trực tiếp delivery record bearing đá bóng trực tiếp certification of Hung Yen Metal Company). Clause 1 Article 93 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2005 governs: “đá bóng trực tiếp juridical person must take on civil liability for performance of civil rights and obligations established by đá bóng trực tiếp representative on behalf of juridical person”. Therefore, in this case, Hung Yen Metal Company must take responsibility for repayment of đá bóng trực tiếp debts of Viet Y Steel Company.

Since Hung Yen Metal Company has not performed obligation under đá bóng trực tiếp agreement (delivery of inadequate goods to Viet Y Steel Company), Viet Y Steel Company filed a lawsuit requesting đá bóng trực tiếp Court to compel Hung Yen Metal Company to refund đá bóng trực tiếp sum đá bóng trực tiếp was paid for đá bóng trực tiếp delivered good (equivalent to đá bóng trực tiếp quantity of good that has not been delivered), interest on late payment, fine, and compensation for damage (because of đá bóng trực tiếp delivery failure, Viet Y Steel Company must buy đá bóng trực tiếp good from other manufacturers with higher price than đá bóng trực tiếp price agreed with Hung Yen Metal Company). Such request is well-grounded and in accordance with Article 34, Clause 3 Article 297, Articles 300, 301, 302, 306, 307 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Commerce 2005.

However, when deciding đá bóng trực tiếp amount payable by Hung Yen Metal Company to Viet Y Steel Company, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance made incorrect calculation, in specific:

With regard to đá bóng trực tiếp paid advance for đá bóng trực tiếp good but đá bóng trực tiếp good was not delivered under 4 economic agreements, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance made đá bóng trực tiếp accurate calculation and was right when compelling Hung Yen Metal Company to refund to Viet Y Steel Company. However, when calculating đá bóng trực tiếp interest on late payment, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance was wrong when applying basic interest rate (10.5% per year) quoted by đá bóng trực tiếp State Bank at đá bóng trực tiếp first instance trial time instead of using đá bóng trực tiếp average overdue interest on đá bóng trực tiếp market at đá bóng trực tiếp payment time (first-instance trial) in accordance with Article 306 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Commerce 2005. In this case, đá bóng trực tiếp Court should have applied average overdue interest of at least three local banks (Agribank, Vietcombank, Vietinbank, etc.) to calculate đá bóng trực tiếp interest on late payment as per đá bóng trực tiếp law.

With respect to breach of agreement: both parties agree that: Party B shall face đá bóng trực tiếp fine of 2% of certified order value upon Party B’s breach in any of đá bóng trực tiếp following cases: delivery of good with appropriate type, non-delivery. As Hung Yen Metal Company fails to deliver adequate good to Viet Y Steel Company, it must face a fine of 2% based on đá bóng trực tiếp breached obligation as prescribed in Article 300 and Article 301 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Commerce 2005. đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance was well-grounded when accepting đá bóng trực tiếp request for đá bóng trực tiếp fine of Viet Y Steel Company but it was wrong when calculating đá bóng trực tiếp interest on đá bóng trực tiếp fine.

With respect to compensation for damage: As represented by đá bóng trực tiếp representative of Viet Y Steel Company, Hung Yen Metal Company committed breach with inadequate delivery, Viet Y Steel Company had no choice but buying đá bóng trực tiếp billets of other manufacturers with higher price to maintain đá bóng trực tiếp business and production. đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance only based on agreements on purchase of billets that Viet Y Steel Company signed with other manufacturers to compel Hung Yen Metal Company to pay Viet Y Steel Company đá bóng trực tiếp difference due to purchase with higher price without considering that đá bóng trực tiếp quantity of good purchased from other manufacturers matches with đá bóng trực tiếp shortage to maintain đá bóng trực tiếp business and operation as planned. As for this matter, đá bóng trực tiếp Court must require Viet Y Steel Company to provide evidence (such as purchase order of a third party, business plan, etc.) to prove đá bóng trực tiếp actual damage as đá bóng trực tiếp basis for Hung Yen Metal Company to pay đá bóng trực tiếp compensation for damage. In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance also calculated đá bóng trực tiếp interest on đá bóng trực tiếp compensation for damage, which not in accordance with Article 302 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Commerce 2005.

According to facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 291, Clause 3 Article 297 and Clause 299 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code (amended in 2011),

“With regard to đá bóng trực tiếp paid advance for đá bóng trực tiếp good but đá bóng trực tiếp good was not delivered under 4 economic agreements, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance made đá bóng trực tiếp accurate calculation and was right when compelling Hung Yen Metal Company to refund to Viet Y Steel Company. However, when calculating đá bóng trực tiếp interest on late payment, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance was wrong when applying basic interest rate (10.5%per year) quoted by đá bóng trực tiếp State Bank at đá bóng trực tiếp first instance trial time instead of using đá bóng trực tiếp average overdue interest on đá bóng trực tiếp market at đá bóng trực tiếp payment time (first-instance trial) in accordance with Article 306 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Commerce 2005. In this case, đá bóng trực tiếp Court should have applied average overdue interest of at least three local banks (Agribank, Vietcombank, Vietinbank, etc.) to calculate đá bóng trực tiếp interest on late payment as per đá bóng trực tiếp law”.

“đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance was well-grounded when accepting đá bóng trực tiếp request for đá bóng trực tiếp fine of Viet Y Steel Company but it was wrong when calculating đá bóng trực tiếp interest on đá bóng trực tiếp fine”.

“In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance also calculated đá bóng trực tiếp interest on đá bóng trực tiếp compensation for damage, which not in accordance with Article 302 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Commerce 2005”.

Quash đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Judgment No. 63/KDTM-PT dated April 5, 2010 of đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi and First Instance Judgment No. 18/2009/KDTM-ST dated September 3, 2009 of People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province; refer đá bóng trực tiếp case file to People’s Court of Bac Ninh Province to retry as per đá bóng trực tiếp law.