Court Rules Construction Company Must Pay CNY 40,025 for Unpaid Crane Rental Services

Court Rules Construction Company Must Pay CNY 40,025 for Unpaid Crane Rental Services

Case Overview
A construction company in Eastern China was ordered to pay CNY 40,025 to a crane operator for unpaid hoisting services. The court found that despite the absence of a written contract, the parties had formed a de facto contract for work, and the evidence presented by the operator was sufficient to prove the debt. The court partially granted the claim, reducing the amount from the requested CNY 40,937.

Case Background and Facts
In the second half of 2007, a construction company (the defendant) was contracted to build three factory buildings for a furniture manufacturer in Eastern China. During the construction, the defendant needed large machinery, specifically cranes, to hoist steel structures and concrete materials. The defendant engaged an individual crane operator (the plaintiff) to perform this work.

After the project was completed, the defendant’s project department staff, including a project manager and several site supervisors, conducted a settlement. The settlement showed that the defendant owed the plaintiff a total of CNY 40,937 in crane rental fees. Despite multiple demands for payment, the defendant failed to settle the debt, leading the plaintiff to file a lawsuit.

Court Proceedings and Evidence
The case was first heard in April 2010 under a simplified procedure and later converted to a standard procedure. Two public hearings were held. The plaintiff presented three key pieces of evidence: three crane rental invoices showing the total amount owed. The plaintiff explained that a printing error on one invoice showed the wrong month, but the dates were actually from January 2008.

The defendant challenged all three invoices, arguing that the work could not have occurred on the dates shown. The defendant claimed that one factory building was already completed by the time of an invoice, and that another invoice showed work in January 2007, before the defendant had even signed the construction contract for the project in October 2007.

The plaintiff also submitted a previous court judgment confirming that the named project staff were indeed employees of the defendant. Additional photocopies of settlement slips were provided, but the court rejected these due to lack of originals.

The defendant presented its own evidence, including construction completion documents and inspection records, arguing that certain concrete work did not require crane hoisting and that the hoisting of steel structures was not part of its scope of work.

Court Findings and Judgment
The court reviewed the evidence carefully. It accepted the plaintiff’s three invoices as valid evidence because they were signed by the defendant’s project staff, including site supervisors whose signatures appeared in other court documents. The court noted that all hoisting work occurred before the factory buildings were completed.

The court found that the defendant’s project manager was responsible for the overall project, with specific staff assigned to each factory building. One supervisor signed for crane fees of CNY 12,400 for one building, while another site supervisor confirmed 170 hours of work for the other two buildings. Using the rate confirmed in the signed invoices (CNY 162.50 per hour), the court calculated the fees for the 170 hours at CNY 27,625.

The court held that the plaintiff’s evidence met the minimum standard of proof, showing it was more likely than not that the hoisting services were provided for the defendant’s project. Since the defendant failed to prove that the work was done by someone else or that the fees were already paid, the court recognized a de facto contract for work between the parties.

The court ruled that the defendant must pay CNY 40,025 (CNY 12,400 + CNY 27,625) and rejected the remaining claim of CNY 912. The defendant was also ordered to bear the litigation costs.

Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that a written contract is not always required for a valid contractual relationship. Where one party performs work and the other party accepts the benefit, a de facto contract for work exists. The court also applied the standard of preponderance of evidence, accepting the plaintiff’s version because it was more credible than the defendant’s unsupported denials.

Practical Insights
This case illustrates that oral or implied contracts for work can be enforceable in court. Businesses and individuals should note that invoices signed by project staff may be sufficient evidence to prove a debt. The case also shows that courts will calculate reasonable compensation based on market rates and confirmed work hours when no fixed price was agreed. Parties should keep careful records of work performed and payments made to avoid disputes.

Legal References
Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China: Article 107 (liability for breach of contract), Article 109 (payment of price or remuneration), Article 263 (contract for work: payment of remuneration).

Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.