Analysis On The Case Of Mr. Qiu V. Luzheng Co. For The Futures Brokerage Contract Disputes

With the rapid development of economy in China, the futures trading become more prosperity, but it also leads to a variety of disputes. The central issue is whether the trading system provided by Futures Company should undertake contractual collateral obligations. The sample is a classical case which involves contract dispute of collateral obligations.In the sample case, the plaintiff Mr. Qiu suffers loss because of the failure of Hengsheng system which is provided the defendant Luzheng Company, the two sides have different opinions in four aspects. These four aspects are as follows: whether the defendant has violated the collateral obligation, how to take the responsibility, how to determine the scope of compensation for property damage and whether limitation of action is interrupted or not. Firstly, the definition of collateral obligation is mainly based on the principle of honesty and credit, the nature of the contract and the trading habits. And collateral obligation has different types, such as the duty of care and the duty of protection. In the case, although the trading system is not designed by the defendant, as a provider, the defendant shall be fully tested before put into use, however, the defendant doesn't fulfill the collateral obligation of attention and protection; secondly, collateral obligation is throughout the whole process of contract, applying for the principle of fault imputation, the defendant should bear the liability for breach of collateral obligation which is during the contract performance period, at the same time, the trading system faults is not due to vis major, therefore, the defendant should bear the liability for breach of contract and not apply for grounds for exemption; Thirdly, discussing the relief measures of breach of collateral obligation, and mainly focusing on the components of compensation liability for damage and the scope of limitation. To declare the plaintiff suffered by indirect damage, and by using the theory of correspond causality to analyze the causality between the behavior of violating collateral obligation by the defendant and the loss suffered by the plaintiff. At the same time, using domestic and foreign laws as well as judicial precedents for reference, based on the principle of complete compensation, the doctrine of foresight, corresponding causality and the rule of victims having faults, to estimate the scope of liability that the defendant should bear. Finally, according to the provisions of article 14 th in “regulations on the Matters of Application of limitation of action on the trial of civil cases by the Supreme People's Court”, the plaintiff 's complaining behavior lead to the discontinuation of limitation of action. In other words, when the plaintiff takes legal action to the court of first instance, it is within 2 years of the limitation of action. Therefore, the defendant which provides the trading system should bear the liability for breach of contract, and the range of compensation should be based on the principle of complete compensation as well as damage probability and impairment measures.