论文部分内容阅读
经过认真研究讨论,专家们认为,根据案件材料显示,华达公司没有有效的证据证明其按照“合作开发协议书”履行了出资、解除权利限制和经营义务,因此其行为已经构成根本违约;辽宁省高级人民法院(2010)辽立一保字第2号民事裁定书及法院函,在未经审判的条件下认定讼争的4000万元属于华达公司转入泛华公司的资金,混淆了实体权利问题与程序权利问题,且4000万元的存在和权属均未确定,故对案件的公正审理构成不良影响,程序存在瑕
After careful study and discussion, experts believe that according to the case materials, Huada did not have any valid evidence to prove that it has fulfilled its contribution, relieved the rights and obligations under the “Cooperation and Development Agreement”, and therefore its actions constituted a fundamental default ; Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s Court (2010) Liao Li Yibao No. 2 civil ruling and court letter, without trial under the conditions found 40 million yuan of the dispute belongs to Huada Company transferred Pan-China company’s funds, Confused the issue of substantive rights and procedural rights, and the existence and ownership of 40 million yuan are not determined, so the fair trial of the case adversely affected the existence of procedural flaws