Recently, the construction engineering contract dispute case “Fujian X Construction Company v. X Industrial Company”, represented by Attorney Li Min of the Fuzhou Branch of Landing Law Offices, was selected as one of the Outstanding Construction Engineering Cases by Fujian Lawyers.

To enhance the professional capability of lawyers in Fujian Province handling construction engineering disputes and to promote professional exchange and learning, the Construction and Engineering Law Committee of the Fujian Lawyers Association conducted a province-wide solicitation and selection of exemplary construction engineering cases. In accordance with the selection criteria and procedures, the review panel ultimately selected 12 Outstanding Construction Engineering Cases handled by Fujian lawyers.

Fujian X Construction Company v. X Industrial Company

Case Overview

In 2016, a Fujian construction company won the bid for an earthwork project in an industrial park and signed a Construction Engineering Construction Contract with an industrial company, agreeing on a fixed unit price of 3.02 RMB/m³ for the mechanical loose-fill soil work.

After the construction was completed, the auditing agency deducted part of the project payment on the grounds that “no soil excavation was required,” and the appraisal agency unilaterally adjusted the unit price to 1.31 RMB/m³, resulting in a reduction of 2.31 million RMB in the project payment.

The central disputes between the parties were:

1. Whether the mechanical loose-fill soil work volume had been completed, and
2. Whether the unit price adjustment was lawful.

The court of first instance adopted the appraisal opinion and calculated the project payment at the rate of 1.31 RMB/m³, after which the Fujian construction company filed an appeal.

Judgment Result

During the second instance, the legal team led by Attorney Li Min of Landing (Fuzhou) Law Offices submitted key evidence — including operator testimony, proof of labor cost payments, and on-site photographs — demonstrating that the construction work indeed required the wheel loader to perform a “second excavation.” This showed that the appraisal agency’s conclusion that “no excavation machinery was used” was inconsistent with the facts.

The court found that the contract clearly stipulated a fixed unit price and that no negotiated change had taken place. The appraisal agency’s unilateral adjustment of the unit price violated the Construction Project Cost Appraisal Standards, constituting an improper substitution of appraisal for judicial review (“yi jian dai shen”).

In the final judgment, the court revised the original ruling and ordered the industrial company to pay for the mechanical loose-fill soil project at the contractual unit price of 3.02 RMB/m³, totaling 4.0857 million RMB, thereby recovering 2.31 million RMB in losses for the construction company.

Case Highlights — Reconstructing Facts with Evidence to Break the “Appraisal-in-Place-of-Adjudication” Deadlock

After being retained for the appeal, Attorney Li Min’s team quickly assembled professional resources and launched a comprehensive rebuttal focused on gaps in the appraisal opinion:

1. Completing the evidence chain: Submitted wheel-loader operation logs, proof of labor-cost payments, witness testimony, and on-site photographs to demonstrate that the contractor actually used loaders to perform the mechanical loose-fill earthwork — directly overturning the appraisal agency’s speculation that the opinion “did not involve excavation machinery.”

2. Use of visual aids: Employed earthwork process diagrams, on-site topography photographs, and comparative machinery illustrations to give the judges an intuitive understanding of the project details and to reveal the contradictions between the appraisal opinion and the objective construction site conditions.

3. Reinforcing the legal framework: Emphasized that the Construction Engineering Construction Contract expressly stipulated a “fixed and non-adjustable unit price,” and that the appraisal agency’s unilateral adjustment violated the Construction Project Cost Appraisal Standards, constituting an improper substitution of appraisal for judicial review (“yi jian dai shen”).

Typical Significance — Integrating Professional Expertise and Strategy to Promote Standardization in Construction Litigation

1. Accurately distinguishing factual issues from technical issues:

The legal team used solid evidence to clarify the factual disputes, guiding the court back to the rules of evidence and preventing the appraisal agency from overstepping and making unauthorized determinations.

2. Empowering litigation through technical tools:

The use of visualized materials enabled more precise judicial decision-making, breaking through professional barriers and significantly enhancing persuasive force.

3. Upholding the principle of contractual autonomy:

Reinforced the stability of fixed-unit-price contracts, thereby safeguarding market transaction order.