Research On The Problem Of Capacity To Be A Party

The most important part in the theory of parties is the theory of qualified litigant whose definition and change will affect the related regulations of civil lawsuit directly or indirectly. Therefore, studying the qualification of litigants has important theoretical value. And meanwhile, the qualification of litigants often becomes the core of contention for both parties in the judicial practice. In this article, the author try to selecting one typically controversial case which is related to litigant qualification, explaining a series of issues related to the eligibility of parties, hoping this article can provide some help to others when dealing with the similar cases in the future.The article is divided into four parts:The first part mainly introduces the basic facts. In order to undertake the construction project located in the industrial park of Minyou, Hetong Chen signed the agreement of Borrow Qualification with Wuhan Branch of Chaoyang on May6, 2007. On May11 of the same year, Chen signed the Construction Contract with the Hanland Branch of Wantong through borrowing the related certificates from the Wuhan Branch of Chaoyang. During the construction process,no effective agreement between the parties was reached due to the rising cost and the construction project which was forced to shut down, then Hanland Branch of Wantong put an action against Wuhan Branch of Chaoyang to the Xiaogan Intermediate People’s Court.During the lawsuit,Chen participated in the litigation as the third person who had an independent right of claim and the court actively added the Wantong Head Office as the third party without independent claims. After the first-instance judgment sentence,Hetong Chen,the Wantong Head Office and Hanland Branch of Wantong respectively have appealed to the High Court of Hube Province.The second part summarizes the controversial issues on which each part focuses. Firstly,there are two different opinions on the litigation subject qualification of Chen. The first view is that Chen is not the proper plaintiff because he is one staff of Hanland Branch of Wantong. The second view shows that Chen is the proper plaintiff as he is the actual constructor for the construction project. Secondly, when it comes to the litigation subject qualification of Hanland Branch of Wantong, the first view insists that it can’t be the proper plaintiff because it doesn’t have the ability of right while the second view holds that Hanland Branch of Wantong is the proper plaintiff in this case as it belongs to the heir in the discretional undertaking.Finally,in the regard of the litigation subject qualification of Wantong Head Office, one view says that it belongs to the third party without independent claim, another view is that it should be the co-defendant together with Hanland Branch of Wantong and the last view is that it should be take-on by people in the discretional undertaking.The third part is the theoretical analysis on the procedural law about which there are controversial views in this case. The first controversial view is about whether Chen is the proper plaintiff. The analysis of confirming that he is the actual constructor comes first, followed by the analysis that he is not only the plaintiff in this case but also the proper plaintiff and the last analysis is that he is the third person with the independent right of requiring. The second controversial issue is about the litigation subject qualification of Hanland Branch of Wantong. First of all, the author analyzes the legal basis of that Hanland Branch of Wantong has the ability of being the party. Then the author analyzes that Hanland Branch of Wantong have the capacity for litigation rights and capacity for civil rights the same time from the system of legal capacity. And it’s the proper plaintiff in this case. The third controversial issue is about whether need to add the Wantong Head Office as the codefendant in counterclaim and this one will be discussed mainly from two aspects. First of all, the author analyzes that the Hanland Branch of Wantong is the qualified defendant in the counterclaim in accordance with the above theory and the specific details of this case. Secondly, the analysis of the counterclaim doesn’t deed be confined to the traditional view of the consistency of this lawsuit and counterclaim, in this case, the defendant in the counterclaim is only Hanland Branch of Wantong, and the Wantong Head Office does not have to be added as co-defendant.The last part is the conclusion. By combining the theory with the case to illustrate the eligibility questions, this article finally tells us that Chen is the third person with an independent right of claim and the Hanland Branch of Wantong is the qualified defendant in this lawsuit. And in the counterclaim the Wantong Head Office need not be added as the codefendant, the Hanland Branch of Wantong is the only qualified defendant.