Precedent no. 21/2018/AL on fault and damage in unilateral termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay equipment lease agreement

The equipment lease agreement has a fixed term and specifies no condition for termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement. The Lessee terminated the agreement prior to its expiry without consent vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Lessor.

Because the Lessee just provided a short term advance notice to the Lessor vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement, the Lessor could not make a substituted agreement in the remaining term vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement.

The Lessor requires the Lessee to pay the rent for the remaining term vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement.

Representation vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the representative vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay D Co., Ltd in the lawsuit petition dated March 18, 2007 and subsequent depositions:

On April 10, 2006, D Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Company D) concluded an economic agreement No. 1141/HD-CNQN to take out a lease vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay tugboats) with C Joint-Stock Company (Company C). Under the agreement, Company D leases to Company C 2 tugboats with capacity vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 135 CV and license plate No. NB2010 and NB2172; and provide towage services for Company C to maneuvers their vessels to come into and leave Khe Day Port (Quang Ninh) and Port 10-10 to load goods; monthly rent (VAT inclusive) is VND 50,000,000 per tugboat; Company C will pay to Company D 17 litter Diezel/1 hour/1 135 CV tugboat + 0.23 litter vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lubricant/1 hour/1 tugboat (the fuel price and costs incurred at two terminals will be re-calculated at the payment time, if any). Company D shall assign 1 master, 1 chief mechanic and 1 sailor on a tugboat and fully pay them salaries… The agreement is effective from the date vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay signing to December 31, 2006 inclusive.

On August 17, 2006, Company C sent the Dispatch No. 2349 INDEVCO, requesting Company D to terminate and complete the agreement No. 1141/HD-CNQN dated April 10,2006 prior to its expiry from August 20, 2006.

On August 18, 2006, Company D sent the Dispatch No. 59.CVCty in reply to the Dispatch No. 2349 INDEVCO vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Company C as follows:  requesting Company C to pay a lump sum vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the rent vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 2 tugboats in 2^ndquarter vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 2006 (enclosed with the record vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay statement dated July 13, 2006) and pay a lump sum vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the rent vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 2 tugboats for the remaining term vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement from August 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 if Company C does not wish to lease 2 tugboats from August 20, 2006.

On September 4, 2006, Company C and Company D made a record vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay statement vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay tugboat rent; thereby two parties also determined total sum vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay money payable to Company D up to August 21, 2006 is VND 511,539,505.

On January 16, 2007, Company C paid Company D VND 511,539,505.

On March 18, 2007, after unsuccessful negotiations, Company D filed a lawsuit with the Court compelling Company C to pay Company D VND 403,000,000 and late payment charge from August 21, 2006 to December 31, 2006 as per the law. At the first instance court hearing, the representative vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the plaintiff withdrew the claim for late payment charge.

Representation vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay representative vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Company C:

The agreement No. 1141/HD-CNQN dated April 10, 2006 with Company D was concluded and performed as stated by the plaintiff. On August 17, 2006, no longer wishing to use 2 leased tugboats, Company C sent a dispatch to Company D requesting the termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreement prior to its expiry. Company C paid Company D VND 511,539,505. Company C refused to pay Company D VND 403,000,000 because it did not incur such debt in fact. So Company C requires recalculation. Company C only accepts 50% vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the statement provided that it is calculated correctly and properly.

In the First Instance Commerce Judgment No. 01/2012/KDTM-ST dated January 18, 2012, the People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Quang Ninh Province judged:

Refuse the request vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay D Co., Ltd claiming Company C (now is Joint-Stock General Company vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Group I) the payment vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the remaining value vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreement No. 1141HD-CNQN dated April 10, 2006 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay VND 303,000,000 and late payment charge vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay VND 157,260,000.

In addition, the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance decided the court fee and announced the appeal right to litigants as per the law.

On February 10, 2012, Company filed an appeal against First Instance Judgment (postmark stating sending date is February 25, 2012).

In the Decision No. 87/2012/KDTMPT-QD dated May 17, 2012, the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi decided to reject the appeal vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Company D for the ground vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay overdue appeal as prescribed in Article 245 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay theCivil Procedure Code.

On June 7, 2012, Company D filed another claim, requesting a cassation review against the said Decision.

In the Appeal No. 29/2015/KN-KDTM dated May 4, 2015, the Chief Justice vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court requested the Council vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Judges vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court to review the case under cassation procedure to quash the above Decision on Rejection vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal No. 87/2012/KDTMPT-QD dated May 17, 2012 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Hanoi and First Instance Commercial Judgment No. 01/2012/KDTM-ST dated January 18, 2012 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Quang Ninh; refer the case to the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Hanoi city for re-conduct trial as per the law.

At the cassation trial court hearing, the representative vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Procuracy consents to the appeal made by the Chief Justice vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court.

[1] On April 10, 2006, Company D leased to Company C 2 tugboats to maneuvers vessels between Port 10-10 and Khe Day Port (Quang Ninh); the lease was valid from the date vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay signing to December 31, 2006 under the economic agreement No. 1141/HD-CNQN. The equipment lease agreement specifies no condition for termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement. However, on August 17, 2006, Company C sent a written notice No. 2349/INDEVCO vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreement from August 20, 2006 for the reason vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay “no longer wishing to lease 2 tugboats”. As Company C provided a short term advance notice to the Lessor vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement, it caused damage to Company D because it could not make a substituted agreement. Company C was at fault, so it is responsible for the damage suffered by Company D. The actual damage should be the rent vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay equipment for the remaining term vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement.

[2] Before proceedings were issued, Company D sent the Dispatch No. 75CVCtyDG (mentioning 2006 only), requesting Company C to pay the rent vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 2 tugboats from August 21, 2006 to December 31, 2006 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay VND 250,000,000. In the Dispatch No. 2774 INDEVCO dated October 17, 2006, Company C only agreed to cover the salaries paid to the pilots. Disagreeing with such reply, on March 18, 2007, Company D filed a lawsuit, requesting Company C to pay VND 403,000,000 (equivalent to the rent vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 2 tugboats for the remaining term vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement). Thus, this is possibly considered as the actual damage claimed by the plaintiff.

[3] When the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance accepted the case for first instance retrial, Company D claims the residual value vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement from August 21, 2006 to December 31, 2008 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay VND 403,000,000 and late payment charge. As Company C paid VND 100,000,000, it has to keep paying VND 303,000,000 and the late payment charge. The Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance refused this claim as stating that it is unfounded and such amount is residual value vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement which has not been performed. On the other hand, the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance did not consider request vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Company D because Company D did not claim compensation for damage while it has to right to do so. This wrong decision negatively affects the legitimate interests vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Company D.

[4] As mentioned in the record vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court hearing on January 18, 2012, the representative vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Company D was present at the court hearing on that date, so that representative should have known the content and decision vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Court. It was not until February 10, 2012 that Company D filed an appeal (the postmark mentioning the sending date is February 25, 2012, and the seal indicating the receiving date is February 27, 2012), which was overdue as prescribed in Article 245 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Civil Procedure Code. However, Company D is ungrounded when citing its representative not clearly hearing what the Presiding Judge pronounced as the reason for its overdue appeal as prescribed in Section 5 Part I vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Resolution No. 05/2006/NQ-HDTP dated August 4, 2006 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Council vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Judges vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court. Thus, the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal was right when rejecting the appeal.

[5] Although the Decision on Rejection vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal No. 87/2012/KDTMPT-QD dated May 17, 2012 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Hanoi is well-grounded, the First Instance Judgment takes effect upon this Decision, so it is necessary to quash both Decision on Rejection vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal No. 87/2012/KDTMPT-QD dated May 17, 2012 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Hanoi and First Instance Commercial Judgment No. 01/2012/KDTM-ST dated January 18, 2012 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Quang Ninh; and then refer the case to the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Hanoi city for re-conduct trial as per the law.

According to facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 297, Clause 1, 2 Article 299 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Civil Procedure Code (amended in the Law No. 65/2011/QH12 dated March 29, 2011),

“[1] On April 10, 2006, Company D leased to Company C 2 tugboats to maneuvers vessels between Port 10-10 and Khe Day Port (Quang Ninh); the lease was valid from the date vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay signing to December 31, 2006 under the economic agreement No. 1141/HD-CNQN. The equipment lease agreement specifies no condition for termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement. However, on August 17, 2006, Company C sent a written notice No. 2349/INDEVCO vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreement from August 20, 2006 for the reason vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay “no longer wishing to lease 2 tugboats”. As Company C provided a short term advance notice to the Lessor vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the termination vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement, it caused damage to Company D because it could not make a substituted agreement. Company C was at fault, so it is responsible for the damage suffered by Company D. The actual damage should be the rent vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay equipment for the remaining term vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the agreement.”

1. Quash the Decision on Rejection vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Overdue Appeal No. 87/2012/KDTMPT-QD dated May 17, 2012 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi and First Instance Commercial Judgment No. 01/2012/KDTM-ST dated January 18, 2012 vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Quang Ninh Province on trial vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay dispute over equipment lease agreement between D Co., Co., Ltd, the plaintiff, and C Joint-Stock Company, the defendant.

2. Refer the case file to People’s Court vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Quang Ninh Province for re-trial as per the law.