Blog
![[Lawyer’s Perspective] Does the reduced rate stipulated in an invalid construction contract actually have any binding force?](/npublic/img/s.png "[Lawyer’s Perspective] Does the reduced rate stipulated in an invalid construction contract actually have any binding force?")
Recently, the judicial opinion in Civil Judgment No. (2018) Supreme People's Court Min Shen No. 5332—that “even if the construction contract is invalid, since the parties have explicitly agreed on a reduction ratio for the settlement of project payments, which reflects their true intentions, and the project has passed acceptance inspection, the agreement on the reduction ratio is binding on both parties”—has been widely circulated within the circle of construction lawyers, bringing joy to Party A (the general contractor or sub-contractor, or the party engaging in illegal subcontracting) and causing distress to Party B (the actual constructor). On this issue, the author holds a different view, arguing that the aforementioned opinion and judicial rule represent only a partial glimpse, failing to capture the whole picture. They do not reflect “the evolution and refinement of judicial practice regarding the aforementioned issue,” nor do they reveal “the growing convergence of judicial rules toward the ‘actual participation in management costs’ theory, which is more equitable and just.”
A new trend has emerged in the field of construction engineering: collusion in bidding, often accompanied by bribery and acceptance of bribes, is becoming increasingly common. In fact, such collusive bidding practices have always existed to some extent; however, previously the focus was mainly on investigating and prosecuting bribery and acceptance of bribes, with little attention paid to the related issue of collusive bidding itself. Faced with this new trend, collusive bidding crimes clearly deserve greater attention. Yet even more important is the complexity and controversy surrounding these cases. The complexity of such collusive bidding stems from the intricate interplay among official misconduct, the crime of collusive bidding, differences between administrative and criminal offenses, and the nuanced relationship—dependent on specific factual circumstances—that determines whether a collusive bid actually constitutes a crime. This situation involves not only questions of fact-finding and legal application but also a number of issues that warrant careful examination from both legal and logical perspectives.
In the field of construction engineering, recoverable profits are directly linked to the economic interest balance and protection of the parties to a contract, often amounting to millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of yuan. However, due to the unique characteristics and complexity of construction projects, disputes arising from construction contract disputes frequently give rise to numerous controversies among the parties involved. Moreover, the people's courts do not consistently—nor even uniformly—interpret or apply the standards for awarding compensation for lost recoverable profits, with varying approaches sometimes being markedly different. By analyzing relevant legal provisions and typical cases, this article systematically reviews the current state of judicial practice regarding the protection of recoverable profits in construction engineering, identifies existing problems, and proposes potential solutions, thereby providing reference for the compliant party in anticipating and asserting their recoverable profits.
A Brief Analysis of the Application of Article 44 of the Trademark Law, Which Prohibits Obtaining Registration Through Other Improper Means
A red-headed document issued by the Chengdu National Audit Office has stirred up a storm in the cost estimation field. Recently, both a state-owned enterprise and a private real estate developer have consulted with me regarding construction contract disputes in which they previously served as defendants. In these cases, the cost appraisal institutions commissioned by the courts had used Guanglianda’s engineering cost software for quantity surveying and pricing. However, the Chengdu Audit Office’s “Chengshen Han (2025) No. 34,” a “Letter from the Chengdu Audit Office Regarding Attention to Risks in Quantity Surveying and Pricing Using Engineering Cost Software,” indicates that Guanglianda’s engineering cost software tends to overestimate quantities. Consequently, the firms claim to have “new evidence sufficient to overturn the original judgment or ruling” and plan to file an application for retrial in these cases.
Our firm is divided into several business departments based on their respective areas of practice, including: Criminal Law Department, Civil Law Department, Administrative Law Department, Financial and Securities Department, Construction and Real Estate Department, Intellectual Property Department, and Labor and Healthcare Department.
Column Menu
Contact Information
China Office Address: No. 730 Renmin West Road, Wuhua District, Kunming City, Zhongji Building (Exit D, Mianshan Metro Station)
Phone:0871-63641358 0871-63640463
U.S. Irvine Address: 930 Roosevelt Suite 215, Irvine, CA, 92620
Contact phone number:(+1) 949-701-8756
Email:zhangqian@zhongjilaw.com
Arcadia, USA Address: 411 E Huntington Dr., Ste 206, Arcadia, CA 91006
Contact phone number:(+1) 626-838-6868
Follow us