A preliminary legal opinion on issues of sales contract
Hangzhou Yuhang Zhenghua Rihua Glass Company Ltd
v.
King Agate Perfume (Hangzhou) Company Ltd、 John Naweishite、
King Agate Perfume (Mingguang) Company Ltd
Respective Mr. John:
I have read carefully all materials and relevant evidences on claim that your little brother John Naweishite handed over to me and made a deep legal analysis on it. so that I have know much about the case you and your company has involved. According to Chinese law, I put forward following legal advice:
1. plaintiff Hangzhou Yuhang Zhenghua Rihua Glass Company Ltd claim.
Present plaintiff Hangzhou Yuhang Zhenghua Rihua glass company Ltd (Zhenghua company for short) claim King agate perfume (Hangzhou) company Ltd (Hangzhou King agate for short) pay for loan amount to RMB 6632765.79 yuan and also require Mr. John navister and King agate perfume (Mingguang) company Ltd bear the joint liability for it as an investor and as a joint tort-feasor respectively.
2. I will analyse core evidence one by one Zhenghua company had submitted to court.
2.1 Hangzhou agate company present notice and listing of debts and costs to Zhenhua company on July 25, 2007,which shows Hangzhou agate can not continue to fulfill the contract signed with Zhenhua company because of moving. This proof is much disadvantage for Hangzhou agate company from a legal point of view because the notice not only show Hangzhou agate company breach the contract, but also directly specify the amount of the debts your company owned. So from the perspective of the court the burden of proof, Zhenhua company will easily acquire evidence about facts Hangzhou agate company violate the contract and own debts to which make him in more favorable position. Meanwhile, the notice indicates the relationship between Hangzhou agate company and Mingguang Agate company is a relocation relations, which made two company formed a relationship of transference property in accordance with China's laws. If it is true that Hangzhou agate company voluntary transfer property to Mingguang agate company, Mingguang agate company should bear liability within the scope of property accepted freely.
As a result, the notice and listing of debts and costs Hangzhou agate company present to Zhenhua company is adverse to Mingguang agate company and Mr. John. Only after contrary evidences proving we have moved without free of expense was found out, can change our adverse legal position that the notice have brought about.
2.2 Zhenhua company have submitted all archival materials of Hangzhou agate company registered in administration for industry and commerce to the Court, which recorded Hangzhou Agate company all registration conduct including
Establishment of company, capital contribution, increase of registered capital and operation of company. this evidence Zhenhua company gave to the Court want to proved that Mr. Forbes was the actual controller of Hangzhou Agate Company and abused the rights as an actual controller, therefore, who should assume compensation responsibility for debts of Hangzhou agate company in personal property.
As a lawyer, I think that the evidence does not prove the purpose of Zhenhua. Therefore, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Company Law of China, the company hold two obligations for shareholders, the First refers to contribute all registered capital shareholders has promised to invest in, the Second is running business legitimately in accordance with law. As for registration, based on the business registration information, John Naweishite and Paul Naweishite, as the company's two shareholders, have been paid all capital contribution it has registered on August 18, 2004 , and increase registered capital from the original 700,000 euros to 805,000 euros. It shows John. Naweishite and Paul. Naweishite have fulfilled contribution obligations a shareholder subjected to the company.As for legitimate business, according to Chinese Company Law and the relevant legal provisions, legitimate business means that companies shall establish their own independent financial accounting to avoid confused with shareholders’ individual assets. Thus, as long as Hangzhou company's financial books is independent and separable to John. Mr. Naweishite personal property and does not reflect John. Naweishite has the malicious purpose of transference of company property, according to the provisions of the Company Law in China, This action can not be identified as the misuse of statutory independence position of company and the limited liability of shareholders. so individual shareholders should not be required to bear jointly and severally liability for company's debts.
2.3 Zhenhua company submitted copy of Mingguang agate company's business license to the court，by which ,Zhenhua companies want to show the agate Mingguang company was also established by John Naweishite, aiming to transfer the assets of Hangzhou agate company. For this, I believe that Zhenhua's claim is untenable. Because, according to China's company law, an individual person can set up several companies, which should not bear jointly and severally liability each other because of the shareholder who established company is the same individual. this evidence
Zhenhua company cited to the court is attached to the notice issued by Agate Hangzhou company on July 25, 2007. Therefore, from a legal point of view, if the notice issued by Agate Hangzhou company on July 25, 2007 isn’t carried out, which means the Mingguang agate company have not accept the agate company assets freely, even Mingguang agate company is established by Mr John, Mingguang agate company has nothing to do with Hangzhou agate companies from a legal view, let alone bear jointly and severally liability for Hangzhou agate company.
2.4 Zhenhua company produce to the Court a contract signed on November 8, 2004 by John. Naweishite on behalf of Hangzhou company with Zhenhua company. Zhenhua company would like to use this evidence to prove John. Naweishite Agate still operate and manage company business after not acting as the company's legal representative . On this evidence, the lawyers believe that the evidence can only show John. Naweishite just participated in management of Hangzhou company business and unable to prove that Mr. John had abused the rights of the shareholders. Therefore, this evidence could not against Mr. John that request him bear joint and several liability for agate Hangzhou companies debts personally.
2.5 Zhenhua company also brought forth to the Court cooperation contract with Hangzhou agate company, delivery notes and invoice Zhenhua company produced to Hangzhou agate company and so on. These evidence play a role of supporting sales truth between Zhenhua company and the Hangzhou Agate
Company and is unable to prove the fact that Mr.John and agate Mingguang companies should bear joint and several liability, so we can temporarily ignore it.
3. a preliminary plan the lawyer respond to action of Zhenhua company
Based on the analysis of evidence Zhenhua company submitted to the court, I think the following works should be done.
3.1 first party should provide a comprehensive defending opinion to court in order to make them know better about our proceeding.
3.2 First party presents relevant evidence to show, although the notice that Hangzhou company had issued to Zhenhua company on July 25,2007, declare the fact Hangzhou company is going to move toward Mingguang company, the property of Hangzhou company would not voluntary transferred to Mingguang company judged by actual proceeding afterwards. As a result, Mingguang company should not bear joint and several liability for the debts of Hangzhou company.
3.3 First party is going to apply for a court to approve us investigate and acquire all financial accounting materials of Hangzhou agate company, in order to show that Hangzhou company's financial books and management is completely independent and John Naweishite has not the malicious purpose of running business of company and transference of company property .so there are no evidence to prove that Mr. John has misused of company juristic personality and should not assume liability for debts of Hangzhou company in personal property.
The job has involved large amounts of evidences and materials so that We need to carry out more thorough research and analysis, which will be carried on after authorized procuratorial agreement and authorized letter of attorney is signed by Mr. John and Mingguang company with us and counsel fees have been paid for us.
4. Attorney fees on case
Based on object of litigation plaintiff Zhenhua company of the case claimed RMB 6632765.79 yuan, and the facts that I should act for two parties as my client, that is Mr. John and Mingguang agate company, meanwhile according to the regular charging standards of case concerning foreign interests in Hangzhou area that is 4% of object of litigation, we give appropriate preferential and charge for 3% of object of litigation considering two defenders and amount of object of litigation, that is 6632765 plus 3%, amount to 200 thousand yuan.
If Mr. John agrees with our opinion above and is willing to pay attorney fees, the lawyer will carry on the next step work in time and provide legal documents such as authorized procuratorial agreement and authorized letter of attorney issued by our law firm.
Sincerely yours
Zhejiang Wanxiang Bright Law Firm
Lawyer: Tu You Xian
9-29-2007
关于杭州余杭振华日化玻璃有限公司诉金玛瑙香水（杭州）有限公司、约翰纳维斯特、金玛瑙香水（明光）有限公司
买卖合同纠纷一案的初步法律意见
尊敬的约翰.纳维斯特先生：
本律师已经认真阅读了你弟弟约翰.纳维斯特转交给我的全部诉讼材料及相关证据，并作了深入的法律分析，对你本人及你公司所处于的事实已经有了相当的了解，现根据中国的法律提供以下法律意见。
一、原告杭州余杭振华日化玻璃有限公司的诉讼请求。
原告杭州余杭振华日化玻璃有限公司（下简称振华公司）目前的诉讼请求是由金玛瑙香水（杭州）有限公司（下简称杭州金玛瑙）偿还所欠的货款人民币6632765.79元，同时要求约翰.纳维斯特先生以投资人的身份对此承担连带责任，要求金玛瑙香水（明光）有限公司（以下简称明光金玛瑙）以共同侵权人的身份承担连带责任。
二、对振华公司向法院提交的核心证据，本律师逐一分析。
1、杭州金玛瑙给振华公司2007年7月25日向振华公司出具的“通知及欠款费用清单”，该通知表明杭州金玛瑙因搬迁的原因而不能继续履行与振华公司的合同，同时出具了欠款清单。这一份证据从法律上来讲对于金玛瑙公司是相当不利的，首先这份通知表明了杭州金玛瑙公司是违约行为，同时又直接列明了所欠款的数额。这样从法庭举证的角度，振华公司将轻易获得了金玛瑙公司的违约及欠款的证据，使其处于较为有利的地位。同时，该通知表明了杭州金玛瑙公司与明光金玛瑙公司之间是一种搬迁关系，这一点根据中国的法律将有可能使两个公司之间形成一种财产转移关系，那么如果一旦真正的杭州金玛瑙公司的财产被无偿的转移至明光金玛瑙公司，那么明光金玛瑙公司是要在无偿接受的财产范围内承担责任的。
所以，杭州金玛瑙公司向振华公司所出具的这一份通知及欠款清单对于明光金玛瑙公司及约翰纳维斯特先生是相当不利的。我们必须要寻找到相反的证据加以证明我们并没有实际进行无偿的搬迁，才可以消除这一份通知关于搬迁的陈述所给我造成的法律上的不利地位。
2、振华公司向法院提交了杭州金玛瑙公司在工商局的全部档案资料，这一套资料记载了杭州金玛瑙公司从设立、缴纳出资、增加资本、到经营的全部工商登记的材料。振华公司向法院举出这份证据想证据，约翰纳维斯特先生是杭州金玛瑙公司的实际操作者，同时振华公司还想通过这样的资料证明约翰纳维斯特先生滥用了权利，因此应当以人个的身份对杭州金玛瑙公司的债务承担赔偿责任。
对此，本律师认为，这份证据不能证明振华公司的目的。因此，根据中国公司法有关规定，公司股东对于公司负有两个义务，一是注入所承诺的全部注册资金，二是按照法律规定合法经营。关于注册资金，从振华公司所提供的来自工商局的登记资料来看，约翰.纳维斯特及保罗.纳维斯特先生作为杭州金玛瑙公司的两名股东，已经于2004年8月18日向该公司投入了全部的注册资本金，且将注册资本金从原70万欧元增至80.5万欧元。由此可以证据，约翰.纳维斯特与保罗.纳维斯特均履行了作为股东向公司出资的义务。关于合法经营，根据中国公司法及相关法律规定，合法经营主要是指公司要独立地建立自己的财务帐册，避免与股东的个人资产发生混同。因此，只要杭州金玛瑙公司的财务帐册是独立的，可以与约翰.纳维斯特先生的个人财产能够明确分开，并且从该财务资料中没有反映出约翰.纳维斯特先生从该公司恶意转移财产的行为，那么根据中国公司法的规定，这就不能被法院认定为股东滥用公司法定独立地位及股东有限责任，当然也就不能要求股东个人对公司的债务承担连带责任。
3、振华公司向法院提交了明光金玛瑙公司的营业执照复印件，振华公司想用这份证据证明明光金玛瑙公司同时也是约翰.纳维斯特先生所设立，设立的目的就是为了转移杭州金玛瑙公司的资产。对此，本律师认为，振华公司的主张不能成立。因为，根据中国公司法，一个人是可以设立多家公司，而该多家公司并不能因为其设立的股东是同一个人而相互承担连带责任。振华公司向法院举出这份证据是附属于2007年7月25日杭州金玛瑙公司的通知这一份证据的。因此，从法律上来讲，如果杭州金玛瑙公司于2007年7月25日这一份通知并没有实际实施，也就是说明光金玛瑙公司并没有实际无偿接受杭州金玛瑙公司的资产，那么即使明光金玛瑙公司是约翰.纳维斯特先生另行设立，其在法律上也与杭州金玛瑙公司无关，更不能为杭州金玛瑙公司承担连带责任。
4、振华公司向法院举出2004年11月8日约翰.纳维斯特先生代表杭州金玛瑙公司与振华公司所签署的一份合同。振华公司想用这份证据证明约翰.纳维斯特先生不担任金玛瑙公司的法定代表人后仍然操作该公司的经营管理。对这份证据，本律师认为，这份证据只能说明约翰.纳维斯特先生参与杭州金玛瑙公司的经营，但是并不能证明约翰纳维斯特先生就滥用了股东的权利。因此，这份证据不能成为要求约翰纳维斯特以个人身份对杭州金玛瑙公司承担连带责任的证据。
5、振华公司另外向法院举出了与杭州金玛瑙公司之间签署的合作合同、振华公司向杭州金玛瑙公司的送货单、开具的发票等。这些证据均是辅助于振华公司与杭州金玛瑙公司之间销售往来的事实，对于振华公司要求约翰纳维斯特先生及明光金玛瑙公司是否应当承担连带责任并不能起到实质性的证明作用，所以我们可以暂时不予理会。
三、律师对于应诉振华公司的初步方案。
对于振华公司向法院提交的以上的证据分析，本律师认为，需要考虑开展以下法律工作。
1、我方需要向法院提出一份完整的答辩意见，以使法院能够清晰地了解我们的整个过程。
2、我方以举出相关证据，证明尽管杭州金玛瑙公司2007年7月25日向振华公司出具过“通知”，表明杭州金玛瑙公司准备向明光金玛瑙公司搬迁，但是在后来的实际进展过程中，并没有将杭州金玛瑙公司的财产无偿地向明光金玛瑙公司进行转移，因此明光金玛瑙公司并不存在为杭州金玛瑙公司承担连责任的法律事实。
3、我方将申请法院准予调取杭州金玛瑙公司的所有财务资料，以证明杭州金玛瑙公司的财务帐册及经营完全是独立的，并不存在约翰纳维斯特先生恶意操作杭州金玛瑙公司及转移财产的情况。因此约翰纳维斯特先生不存在滥用公司人格，当然不能对杭州金玛瑙公司的债务承担个人债务。
这些工作由于涉及到大量的证据材料，我们还需要进行更深入的研究与分析。这些工作我们将在约翰纳维斯特先生与明光金玛瑙公司与我们签署委托代理合同、授权委托书并向我们支付律师费之后开展。
四、有关本案律师代理费。
由于本案涉及原告振华公司起诉的金额为6632765.79元，本案将要委托本律师代理的当事人有两方，即约翰纳维斯特先生及金玛瑙香水（明光）有限公司。根据我们律师事务所在杭州地区正常的涉外案件的收费标准，一般标准为涉案金额的4%。考虑本案有两名被告及金额，我们给予适当优惠，本律师按照诉讼金额的3%收费，即6632765乘3%，即为20万元。
如果约翰纳维斯特先生同意以上意见，并愿意支付本律师的律师费，本律师将及时开展下一步的工作，并提供律师事务所的委托代理合同，授权委托书等法律文件。
此致
浙江万向光明律师事务所
律师：屠友先
2007年9月29日
