Recently, Lawyer Wu Ailing, Senior Partner of Gaopeng Law Firm, and Lawyer Wu Xiaoyun, represented by the Beijing Arbitration Commission, successfully resolved a dispute over a construction project contract.

This case is a dispute over engineering debts between a construction service company and the general contractor accepted by the Beijing Arbitration Commission. The focus of the dispute in the case is how to determine the quantity of construction work. Given that the construction of the project in question was completed in 2016, there are no signs of construction on site. The applicant represented by our agency only has a copy of the engineering quantity confirmation form, while the respondent has completely denied the authenticity of the confirmation form from the beginning and claimed that the engineering payment has been overpaid, resulting in a significant dispute between the two parties.

Our two lawyers first conducted a repeated analysis of the terms related to quantity confirmation, acceptance, and settlement in the construction contract, and communicated with the parties to restore the actual situation of the construction site. Then, they screened and organized the evidence. In this case, in addition to providing the arbitration tribunal with the construction contract, quantity confirmation form, payment details, and multiple chat records, they particularly carefully organized a large number of underlying confirmation forms corresponding to the quantity confirmation form, The daily construction record form (also a photocopy, and the applicant does not have the original), and it is proposed that although the quantity confirmation form is a photocopy, it complies with the relevant provisions of the construction agreement and the actual situation of the construction site of this project. Not holding the original is not the responsibility of the applicant, and this photocopy and other evidence in the case are mutually supportive, forming a complete evidence chain.

In addition, our lawyers also flexibly apply the allocation principle of the burden of proof, stating that the applicant has provided relevant evidence regarding the amount of work completed, achieving a high degree of probability. The respondent should provide relevant evidence regarding the project payment they have already paid, especially in cases where they claim to have overpaid, and should provide relevant basis for the detailed payment of the payment. The respondent of this case will provide the engineering audit report of the project owner to prove that the amount claimed by the applicant exceeds the amount reviewed by the owner, and the project payment has been overpaid. By comparing the summary and detailed table of the audit report, our lawyer found that the respondent intentionally used only the reviewed part of the project quantity to calculate the project payment due to the applicant, and raised doubts to the arbitration tribunal in court.

In addition, the opposing lawyer, in order to delay time and mislead the arbitrator's trial approach, also raised issues such as engineering quantity appraisal applications, handwriting appraisal, and related personnel not having settlement authority. The two sides engaged in a confrontation, resulting in intense court battles. Under the pressure of our lawyers step by step, the respondent's opinions on many issues raised by the arbitration tribunal were promptly adopted by our lawyers as evidence in favor of the applicant.

The final arbitration tribunal accurately adopted the agency opinion of our lawyer, stating that the project is current and the case does not meet the appraisal conditions. Although the quantity confirmation form is a copy, it conforms to the contract agreement and the actual situation on site, and can be mutually supported with other evidence in the case, with a high degree of probability. Therefore, the arbitration tribunal supported the applicant's arbitration requests for all project payments and corresponding interest, and achieved a comprehensive victory. Lawyer Gao Peng's professional experience and professionalism in the case have also been highly appreciated by the client.