2020年8月7日，建设公司与投资公司签订《技术服务合同》，合同中约定由建设公司为投资公司新建220kV输电线路提供三级质量检查的技术服务，约定的技术服务报酬为204370元。同时约定若投资公司未按照合同的约定支付技术服务报酬的，需要向建设公司支付逾期付款违约金。而后，建设公司依照合同约定完成了相关的三级质量检查技术服务全部工作，于2021年1月25日向投资公司开具了相应的增值税发票，并先后多次向投资公司催款。而投资公司一直以各种理由进行搪塞、推诿，拒不支付技术服务报酬款项和逾期付款违约金。建设公司遂将投资公司诉至法院，要求投资公司支付技术服务报酬款项、逾期付款违约金并承担本案诉讼费用。

 

    本案在审理过程中，经建设公司代理人与投资公司多次沟通，双方达成初步意见后申请法院调解，由投资公司向建设公司支付技术服务费204370元，并承担本案诉讼费用，本案调解结案。

 

    本案是一起因发包方未按照合同约定支付技术服务报酬引发的合同纠纷，案件主要争议焦点为：投资公司是否构成违约？迟延支付技术服务报酬的违约金从何时起算？

 

    本案中，建设公司与投资公司签订的《技术服务合同》，系双方真实意思表示，形式要件完备，内容符合法律规定，对双方当事人均具有约束力。在《技术服务合同》中也明确，投资公司有按合同约定及时、足额向建设公司支付技术服务报酬的义务。而在建设公司完成了相关的三级质量检查技术服务全部工作并开具了相应的增值税发票，且投资公司亦对工作完成情况予以认可的情况下，投资公司未能依合同约定按时足额给付技术服务报酬款项的行为，已构成违约，应承担相应的违约责任。

 

    本案中，建设公司和投资公司在签订的《技术服务合同》中明确约定，在三级质检工作全部结束且建设公司出具合格质检报告后30内一次性支付技术服务报酬，付款前建设公司应提供相同金额的发票；并约定如投资公司逾期付款的，每延迟一日按照迟延支付技术服务报酬的0.1%向建设公司支付违约金。本案建设公司在完成合同约定的工作任务后，于2021年1月25日向投资公司开具了相应的增值税发票，投资公司对发票予以接收后未及时付款，因此，本案在建设公司向投资公司开具发票后即完全满足合同约定的付款条件，违约金应自2021年1月25日起算。

 

 

    《民法典》第一百八十八条、第一百九十二条规定，向人民法院请求保护民事权利的诉讼时效期间为三年；诉讼时效期间届满的,义务人可以提出不履行义务的抗辩。因此，在债务人未及时支付款项，且经多次催收仍拒不支付的情况下，债权人应当在诉讼时效期间内及时采取相应措施进行维权，若因时间跨度大、或催收无效而搁置或遗忘，则可能会因超过诉讼时效而导致要求偿还债务的诉求不被法院支持。

 

    债权人在进行维权时，可以优先考虑把法律维权工作交给专业的律师来开展，以便能获得更好的结果。委托专业律师维权可以一定程度上降低维权的风险并提高维权的效果，也更容易获得专业的法律建议和指导。同时，大多数债权人采取的维权方式都比较“柔和”，例如简单的提醒、催收等，对于债务人产生的实际影响很小，其很难产生紧迫感以及提高还款积极性。因此聘请律师提供专业的法律服务，能够最大限度地争取利益，避免走弯路，更好地维护自身的合法权益。此外，在合同起草阶段，委托专业律师介入起草、审查合同条款，亦能够有效防范合同漏洞或合同陷阱，保障合同条款清晰、准确、无歧义，从而有效维护委托人的合法权益。

本案案件承办人为法风管团队李鹏吒、张川。

 

     On August 7, 2020, the construction company signed a "Technical Service Contract" with the investment company, which stipulated that the construction company would provide three-level quality inspection technical services for the new 220kV transmission line constructed by the investment company. The agreed technical service remuneration was 204370 yuan. At the same time, it is agreed that if the investment company fails to pay the technical service remuneration in accordance with the provisions of this contract, it shall pay the liquidated damages for overdue payment to the construction company. Subsequently, the construction company completed all the related three-level quality inspection technical services in accordance with the contract agreement. On January 25, 2021, it issued the corresponding value-added tax invoice to the investment company and repeatedly urged the investment company to make payments. The investment company has been using various reasons to prevaricate and shirk, refusing to pay the payment of remuneration for technical services and liquidated damages for late payment. The construction company then sued the investment company to the court, demanding that the investment company pay the technical service remuneration, liquidated damages, and bear the litigation costs of this case.

     During the trial of this case, after multiple communications between the agent of the construction company and the investment company, both parties reached a preliminary agreement and applied for court mediation. The investment company paid a technical service fee of 204370 yuan to the construction company and borne the litigation costs. This case was concluded through mediation.

 

B、Legal Analysis
    This case is a contract dispute caused by the employer's failure to pay the technical service remuneration as agreed in the contract. The main focus of the dispute of the case are: Does the investment company constitute a breach of contract? When will the liquidated damages for delayed payment of technical service remuneration be calculated?

     In this case, the "Technical Service Contract" signed between the construction company and the investment company represents the true intention of both parties, with complete formal requirements and content in accordance with legal provisions, and is binding on both parties. In the "Technical Service Contract", it is also clear that the investment company has the obligation to timely and fully pay the technical service remuneration to the construction company according to the contract agreement. However, when the construction company had completed all the related three-level quality inspection technical services and issued corresponding VAT invoice, and the investment company also recognized the completion of the work, the failure of the investment company to pay the technical service remuneration on time and in full as agreed in the contract constitutes a breach of contract and should bear corresponding breach of contract responsibilities.

    In this case, the construction company and the investment company clearly agreed in the "Technical Service Contract" that the technical service remuneration shall be paid in a lump sum within 30 days after the completion of all three-level quality inspection work and the issuance of a qualified quality inspection report by the construction company. Before payment, the construction company shall provide an invoice of the same amount; And it is agreed that if the investment company delays payment,  it will pay liquidated damages to the construction company at the rate of 0.1% of the remuneration for delayed payment of technical services for each day of delay. After completing the work tasks stipulated in the contract, the construction company issued a corresponding VAT invoice to the investment company on January 25, 2021. The investment company did not make timely payment after receiving the VAT invoice. Therefore, after the construction company issued an invoice to the investment company, the payment conditions stipulated in the contract were fully met. The liquidated damages should be calculated from January 25, 2021.

 

C、Management Insights
1.Creditors should pay attention to the issue of statute of limitations in debt collection.
     Article 188 and Article 192 of the Civil Code stipulated that the statute of limitations for requesting protection of civil-law rights from the people's court is three years; If the statute of limitations for litigation expires, the obligor may raise a defense for non-performance. Therefore, in the event that the debtor fails to make timely payments and refuses to make payments despite multiple reminders, the creditor should take corresponding measures to protect their rights within the statute of limitations. If the debt is set aside or forgotten due to a large time span or ineffective collection, it may exceed the statute of limitations and result in the demand for debt repayment not being supported by the court

.2.Debt disputes can be entrusted to professional attorneys to participate in rights protection.

     Creditors can prioritize entrusting legal protection work to professional attorneys when carrying out rights protection, in order to achieve better results. Entrusting professional attorneys to protect rights can reduce the risks and improve the effectiveness of rights protection to some extent, and it is also easier to obtain professional legal advice and guidance. At the same time, most creditors adopt relatively "gentle" methods of safeguarding their rights, such as simple reminders, collection, etc., which have little actual impact on the debtor, making it difficult to generate a sense of urgency and improve repayment enthusiasm. Therefore, entrusting an attorney to provide professional legal services can maximize benefits, avoid detours, and better safeguard one's legitimate rights and interests. In addition, during the contract drafting stage, entrusting professional attorneys to intervene in drafting and reviewing contract terms can effectively prevent contract loopholes or traps, ensure clear, accurate, and unambiguous contract terms, and thus effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the client.