OK, can you hear me? Okay, this kind of thing happened to us. It could happen to anyone. I mean it happened during the competition, right? Someone didn't work. Yeah, okay. Um, it seems that it works. OK, let's move to the stage of the closing arguments, please. You have five minutes.
Thank you. And may I address the court? Well, I have four points to summarize the claims of the plaintiff's council.
The first one is about issue D. I need to emphasize that the shareholders enjoy limited liability, and the company liability may not be extended to the company shareholders unless the corporate veil is pierced. Even if there are some damages that should be compensated in all occasions, there are shareholders who should not be the qualifying subjects after all to bear the obligation.
The second is about the validity of arbitration clauses. Article 11.2 in the FTC uses a standard to relate arbitration and litigation, and that's not allowed in the arbitration law of China mainland. Besides, arbitration first and litigation next is also a kind of arbitration or litigation in China according to the supreme court.
Well, I want to repeat a question about the applicable standard in paragraph 37.1. What are the different sales still not? Explain what the applicable standard is for me and for the penultimate clause.
The fire certification was published in 2018. According to the fire protection law in China and regulations in construction projects, for the production, storage, and handling of explosive materials, like the plant in the present case, it doesn't need to get a five - potential put acceptance from the public security organ, and in the present case, it had already got acceptance in 2018.
The first question is: In this case, cost 2.1 of the SDC stipulates the governing law for all clauses of the SDC. Since the arbitration clause is a part of the SDC, the scenario stipulated in article 13 of the provisions of arbitration - related judicial review, which is the law applicable solely to the contract as agreed upon, does not exist here. Therefore, the law of Noby should be applied to determine the validity of arbitration clauses in this case.
Well, that's all the plaintiff's opinions. Thank you.
OK, can you hear me? Okay, this kind of thing happened to us. It could happen to anyone. I mean it happened during the competition, right? Someone didn't work. Yeah, okay. Um, it seems that it works. OK, let's move to the stage of the closing arguments, please. You have five minutes.
Thank you. And may I address the court? Well, I have four points to summarize the claims of the plaintiff's council.
The first one is about issue D. I need to emphasize that the shareholders enjoy limited liability, and the company liability may not be extended to the company shareholders unless the corporate veil is pierced. Even if there are some damages that should be compensated in all occasions, there are shareholders who should not be the qualifying subjects after all to bear the obligation.
The second is about the validity of arbitration clauses. Article 11.2 in the FTC uses a standard to relate arbitration and litigation, and that's not allowed in the arbitration law of China mainland. Besides, arbitration first and litigation next is also a kind of arbitration or litigation in China according to the supreme court.
Well, I want to repeat a question about the applicable standard in paragraph 37.1. What are the different sales still not? Explain what the applicable standard is for me and for the penultimate clause.
The fire certification was published in 2018. According to the fire protection law in China and regulations in construction projects, for the production, storage, and handling of explosive materials, like the plant in the present case, it doesn't need to get a five - potential put acceptance from the public security organ, and in the present case, it had already got acceptance in 2018.
The first question is: In this case, cost 2.1 of the SDC stipulates the governing law for all clauses of the SDC. Since the arbitration clause is a part of the SDC, the scenario stipulated in article 13 of the provisions of arbitration - related judicial review, which is the law applicable solely to the contract as agreed upon, does not exist here. Therefore, the law of Noby should be applied to determine the validity of arbitration clauses in this case.
Well, that's all the plaintiff's opinions. Thank you.
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt!基座大模型为豆包。)
原告方从股东责任、仲裁条款有效性、消防验收规定和仲裁条款适用法律四个方面阐述了自己的观点,认为根据相关法律法规和合同约定,原告方的主张是合理的。
根据相关法律和案例,结合各方陈述,我们作为反方(被告方)进行总结陈词。
首先,关于仲裁协议的国际私法适用以及仲裁地的问题,我们做了预先研究。合同可以被分类为仅适用中华人民共和国法律的合同,以及不仅适用中华人民共和国法律,还可适用其他法律(在处理涉外民事关系时可选择的法律)的合同。在本案中,中华人民共和国法律对涉外民事关系中的仲裁协议不具有强制性,有两个原因。其一,仲裁协议中对于涉外民事关系的法律适用未明确表达,这意味着仲裁地和仲裁本座的标准不明确,香港法域是一个独立的法域。其二,只有少数合同情形仅由中华人民共和国法律调整,例如中外合资经营企业合同、中外合作经营企业合同或者中外合作勘探开发自然资源合同。如果一个合同不能被归为这三类,那么本法中关于最相类似合同的规定可能适用。新的情况是,包含仲裁协议的合同不能被归为这三类,更不用说适用于合同的法律并不适用于本案中的仲裁协议,因为它未被明确表达。正如我们所论证的,在香港法域下的仲裁协议的相关要素与仲裁协议的性质相符。
接下来是实质性结论。首先,根据湖北省高级人民法院2022年的规定,被告方不构成重大违约。关于可预见性,即事件是否会发生,在本案中,原告本应知晓相关知识,夏季有雷电天气,但仍未修复相关道路和场地。窗户框架距离火源1.5米,这是可预见的。在合理范围内,各方客观上无法阻止此类事件的发生,尽管采取了一些措施,但在本案中,原告未采取任何合理措施来避免火灾发生,所以在直接因果关系上存在过错。即使采取了最佳措施也可能无法克服损害,在本案火灾发生后,原告没有尽力克服火灾,由于设施老旧破损,火灾发生的事实存在,所以原告的诉求不应被满足。
综上所述,原告存在过错,并非无过错方,被告方不构成违约方。被告请求法院驳回原告的所有诉求。谢谢法庭。
根据相关法律和案例,结合各方陈述,我们作为反方(被告方)进行总结陈词。
首先,关于仲裁协议的国际私法适用以及仲裁地的问题,我们做了预先研究。合同可以被分类为仅适用中华人民共和国法律的合同,以及不仅适用中华人民共和国法律,还可适用其他法律(在处理涉外民事关系时可选择的法律)的合同。在本案中,中华人民共和国法律对涉外民事关系中的仲裁协议不具有强制性,有两个原因。其一,仲裁协议中对于涉外民事关系的法律适用未明确表达,这意味着仲裁地和仲裁本座的标准不明确,香港法域是一个独立的法域。其二,只有少数合同情形仅由中华人民共和国法律调整,例如中外合资经营企业合同、中外合作经营企业合同或者中外合作勘探开发自然资源合同。如果一个合同不能被归为这三类,那么本法中关于最相类似合同的规定可能适用。新的情况是,包含仲裁协议的合同不能被归为这三类,更不用说适用于合同的法律并不适用于本案中的仲裁协议,因为它未被明确表达。正如我们所论证的,在香港法域下的仲裁协议的相关要素与仲裁协议的性质相符。
接下来是实质性结论。首先,根据湖北省高级人民法院2022年的规定,被告方不构成重大违约。关于可预见性,即事件是否会发生,在本案中,原告本应知晓相关知识,夏季有雷电天气,但仍未修复相关道路和场地。窗户框架距离火源1.5米,这是可预见的。在合理范围内,各方客观上无法阻止此类事件的发生,尽管采取了一些措施,但在本案中,原告未采取任何合理措施来避免火灾发生,所以在直接因果关系上存在过错。即使采取了最佳措施也可能无法克服损害,在本案火灾发生后,原告没有尽力克服火灾,由于设施老旧破损,火灾发生的事实存在,所以原告的诉求不应被满足。
综上所述,原告存在过错,并非无过错方,被告方不构成违约方。被告请求法院驳回原告的所有诉求。谢谢法庭。
以下为ai总结(感谢来自 刘圣韬 学长的精彩ai prompt!基座大模型为豆包。)
原告存在过错,并非无过错方,被告方不构成违约方,被告请求法院驳回原告的所有诉求。