Discussion On The Appeal Case Of Shanghai Shanxin Company

Indispensable joint litigation of China is established on the basis of theindispensable joint litigation theory from civil law system. The unitary indispensiblejoint litigation encountered numerous issues in regards to lawmaking, lawenforcement, in theory or in practice, especially in theory, due to a lack of likeindispensible joint litigation and quasi-indispensible joint litigation system. Thequalification of the entity is hard to identify during law enforcement. Throughselection of a typical case that includes the issue of indispensible joint litigation andqualification of litigant, this article elaborates the identification of indispensible jointlitigation and qualification of litigant. Some useful references are anticipated if ithelps the law enforcement of similar cases in the future.This article consists of four sections.The first section introduces the case briefly. On March16,2003, ShanghaiShanxin Construction Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Shanxin Co.) signed aConstruction Contract with Shanghai Weishi Industrial Group Co., Ltd.(hereinafterreferred to as Weishi Co.). On September30,2013, Chen Liangzhong, Di Xiuguo andWang Xianghui signed a Partnership Agreement, stipulating that the all three partnersengaged in the operations of construction contract. During the construction process,the actual construction is done on behalf of Shanxin Co.. Chen Liangzhong, as anemployee of Shanxin Co., had been commissioned to act as an agent of Shanxin Co.and Weishi Co. to participate in the litigation activities due to the above worksShanxin Co. and Weishi Co. in arrears building materials loans and equipment leasepayments. In the court of first instance, Chen Liangzhong filed a suit of paymentdispute against Shanxin Co. and Weishi Co.. Later, for this Construction Contractdispute, Shanxin refused to accept the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court(2007) Shanghai first intermediate second civil court No.134civil judgment,appealed, and got civil judgment from the Shanghai Higher people’s Court (2009)Shanghai final No.35, case closed.The second section summarizes the controversial viewpoint and issues of thecase. In regards to whether Chen Liangzhong et al are the indispensible entity of jointlitigation, there are two different opinions. The first view is that Chen Liangzhong, DiXiuguo and Wang Xianghui three are indispensable entity of joint litigation; second view is that these three are not indispensible entity of joint litigation. In regard towhether Chen Liangzhong et al are the actual construction party of the disputedconstruction projects, there are two views. In regard to the affirmation of settlementbasis between Chen Liangzhong and Shanxin Co., there are three points of views.Finally, disputes of the case involves three legal issues: first, whether ChenLiangzhong et al are the actual construction party of the disputed construction workand whether they qualify the entity of project settlement; Second, whether ChenLiangzhong fulfills the qualification of litigant in this case, in other words, whetherChen Liangzhong, Di Xiuguo and Wang Xianghui are indispensable joint litigants;third, whether case settlement is based on the statement of September29,2004orsettlement agreement of May8,2007.The third section is the jurisprudence analysis of the issues in this case. The firstissue is whether Chen Liangzhong is the actual construction party, whether hesatisfies the entity qualification to the project settlement from Shanxin Co. and WeishiCo., which involves the issue of legitimate parties. First, the analysis to confirmwhether it is the actual construction party is a question of fact judgment. It is also anissue with bases. Then, analyze if Chen Liangzhong is the actual construction party,how to identify whether he satisfies the main qualifications of the project settlementwith Shanxin Co. and Weishi Co., i.e., whether Chen Liangzhong et al are legitimateparties. The second issue is whether Chen Liangzhong is eligible to sue Shanxin Co.and Weishi Co. as a separate plaintiff. First analyze the case is a joint action, and thenanalyze their joint action is not inherently an indispensable litigation, it isquasi-indispensable joint litigation; finally through a combined analysis of litigant’squalification and quasi-indispensable joint action, analyze Chen Liangzhong’seligibility as a litigant in this particular case. The third issue is whether the basis forconstruction settlement is the statement of settlement of September29,2004, or thesettlement agreement of May8,2007in the end. First reference Rosen Baker’sclassification of legal elements and related laws and regulations to analyze thestatement of settlement and settlement agreement, and then compare the probativeforce of the above two, finally conclude which is the basis for settlement.The fourth section is the conclusions. Through the combined usage of theory andcases, explain the issue of litigant’s eligibility in an indispensable joint litigation, findsthat Chen Liangzhong v. Shanxin Co. and Weishi Co. is not inherently anindispensable joint action, but a quasi-indispensable joint litigation, Chen Liangzhong is eligible to be the litigant in the instance case.