论文部分内容阅读
一、案情介绍上诉人(原审被告):金光油籽(宁波)有限公司(以下简称金光公司)被上诉人(原审原告):中国粮食贸易公司(以下简称中粮公司)案由:委托合同纠纷上诉人诉称:金光公司不服一审法院的民事判决,向本院提起上诉并请求撤销一审判决主文的第二项、第三项,其理由是:(1)双方签订的《进口代理协议》中没有关于将保证金转为违约金的约定,且上诉人延期付款是货损,并非上诉人自身原因,不属违约行为。即使保证金属于违约的罚金,依最高法院的司法解释也应当依照未履行部分所占合同约定内容的比例,适用定金罚则,上诉人已支付大部分货款,没收的数额明显高于法律规定。(2)关于滞期费,其应由海事法院管辖,普通法院无权管辖。此外,双方没有约定滞期
I. Case Presentation Appellant (Plaintiff of the First Instance): Gold Light Oilseed (Ningbo) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sinar Mas) Appellee (Plaintiff): China Grain Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as COFCO) Case: Entrusting Contract Dispute Appellant The complaint alleges that Sinotrust did not appeal to the civil judgment of the court of first instance, filed an appeal to this court and requested to rescind the second and third items of the judgment of the first instance on the following grounds: (1) There is no agreement in the Import Agency Agreement between the two parties The transfer of the bond into a breach of contract agreement, and the appellant deferred payment is a loss, not the appellant's own reasons, is not a breach of contract. Even if the guaranty money is in default, the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court shall also apply the payment penalty according to the proportion of the non-performance part of the contract, and the appellant has paid most of the money. The amount of confiscation is obviously higher than the law. (2) With regard to demurrage, it shall be under the jurisdiction of the maritime court and the ordinary courts shall not have jurisdiction. In addition, the two sides did not agree to demurrage