Property companies should analyse cases of dismissal, how to protect their territory, sue the commission for wrongful dismissal and sue for continued performance
So let's move on to the second solution of a video, faces with dismissal, what the property should do. This was mainly about the owner's avoidance action, but it was difficult for the property company to bring the action, and it was only by organizing the owner to do so. My fans have come to ask me what to do, and today they continue to share my own property plan. Of course, i'm not a lawyer, i'm a researcher, i'm right. Get a lawyer。
Property corporations vs. Property management councils and industry committees are also the most common cause of disputes over property services contracts. This case is the most accurate, most commonly used and most solidly based on the property win. Why is it a “contract dispute over property services”? We want to know the nature of the breach: the decision of the property management council (on behalf of the congress of owners) to “dismissal” constitutes a violation of the “dismissal clause” or “legal dismissal procedure” in the property services contract if it violates the civil code or the procedures of the rules of procedure, such as failure to reach a “half-to-half” vote, failure to publicize the law and failure to give a legal notice of discharge。
Since the subject matter is a “contract dispute for property services”, the property company's claim should be centred around a “contract that has not been legally terminated” or a “defunct act”. My advice to the property company that i read on video is that the claim should be written as follows: the first is to confirm that the notice of dismissal was invalid and that the notice of dismissal or notice of non-renewal issued by the management committee was not legally valid as a result of procedural irregularities; the second is to continue the performance of the contract, to request the court to order that the management committee continue to perform the contract of property services and to cooperate in the provision of the property services; the third is to compensate for the loss and may also be made available as a stand-by claim, if it results in a specific economic loss for the property company, such as expected loss of profits, severance of employees, removal of equipment, etc., as a result of the wrongful discharge by the management committee。
To win this suit, the central conclusion is that the central key to a property company's success lies in capturing the two central points of “incompetence of the body of the property board” and “incompetence of the dismissal procedure”, while ensuring that there is no material breach of its services. It can be divided into three categories of success cases: subject defects, procedural irregularities and renewal of contracts。
I also found several successful property cases on the adjudicative paper network. The key to the success of the case is the first winning centre: the main body of the proprietors' committee is seriously ill-suited: the owner's committee filed a case under the name “first proprietors' committee of a small park”, but the name of the proprietors' committee of the proprietors of the proprietors of the proprietors' park in huo and hottt city was used in the proceedings, which was inconsistent and did not provide a valid proprio motu document; the second winning centre: the contract met the statutory renewal conditions: following the expiration of the original contract on 30 november 2024, the property company continued to provide security, cleaning and other services, and the sub-districts were functioning normally and in accordance with the statutory renewal of article 948 of the civil code, “off-term contract”; the third core of the winning case was that the landlord's committee had failed to carry out the voting procedure of the conference of owners prior to the conclusion of the contract with the new property company, which was a “procedure reversal” and the contract was void from the outset. In the end, the property company lost its case. A brief summary would be to see whether the defendant was fit, whether the legal conditions for renewal of the contract were in accordance with the law and whether the contracting procedure was unlawful。
The second successful property case, case no. (2023) no. 05, final 564 and the central property claim: dismissal of the ipa's request to withdraw from the district, transfer of information about the facility, and submission of income and expenditure accounts. The key to the success of the property company in this case is: the first key to the success of the property: the ipa's dismissal proceedings are illegal: the ipa's “questionnaire on the status of the property” is a spontaneous organization, there is no formal resolution in the form of an owner's congress, and the voting owner fails to meet the statutory requirements of “more than two thirds of the exclusive part and more than two thirds of the population”; the second key to the success of the property is: the property company has fulfilled its public obligation: the property company has contracted to disclose the revenues and expenses of the property every half-year, the public revenue and expenses of the public each year, meeting the public obligation of article 943 of the civil code; the third property victory is crucial and central: the primary competence of the property council is limited: ipa is a provisional body which has no legal basis to perform the functions of the owners ' committee during the period of preparation for the election of the new board of directors in the districts. So the point of this breakdown is that it is crucial that, during the run-up to the election of the new board of directors in the sub-districts, if the election of the new board of directors can begin, the administration will inevitably lose its legal basis, which is the absence of a legal basis for fulfilling the duties of the board of owners. The court ultimately dismissed the ipa appeal and upheld the first instance judgement in favour of the property company。
The third successful property company case, no. 2020 su05, final 6367, the core claim being the dismissal of the ipa's request for the transfer of financial records and the return of funds for the collection of property services. We will continue to analyse the key to success in the property, as this is an action brought by the ipa, and the property company can be “at risk”. (a) key to the first property success: ipa brought an action without the authorization of the owner: the ipa initiated the case without providing evidence that the owner's consent to the “proprietary portion of the total building area plus a majority of the total population” did not meet the requirements for voting on the owner's joint management matters; and the second property company won the key: actual performance of contract is lump sum: while the parties have entered into a fee-based contract (payable for administrative inspection), the supplementary agreement and the statement of case is clear and the fee-based contract does not provide for a fee-based contract the proportion of gold, which does not have a basis for performance; the third key to the success of the property company is the completion of the transfer of information: the property company has delegated authority to the property management board to transfer all property information on elevators, completed drawings, owner files, etc., and there is no evidence of non-transfer. The decision resulted in the annulment of the first instance judgement and the dismissal of the complaint by the property management board of the common life square, a well-known municipality。
The three cases found are also very typical. Finally, to summarize for the fans of the property companies, the core of the winning rule is the first core of the success: the subject-dependency defence has priority, focusing on verification of whether the other party (the property management committee/owners' committee) has the same name as the suit, whether it is legally filed by the street / the competent authority and whether it has been effectively authorized by the owner's assembly, which is the “cut-off” of the success story; the second core of the success story: focusing on the defect of the dismissal procedure: if the other party has not convened a general meeting of the owner, the vote has not reached “twice half” (area + number), the vote has not been reviewed, the vote has not been made public; the third core of the success of the claim can be considered as a core defence; the third centre (which is estimated to be more expensive and can be consulted): first to ensure that there is no significant breach of its own performance: retention of the property service evaluation form, maintenance of facilities records, the owner's complaint processing certificate, etc。
As a result of my analysis, i also summarised that the estate company's programme to sue for rescission of the decision of the commission or the ipa to terminate employment, which included, inter alia, pre-indictment preparations: the first is the defect of the property management body. The second is evidence of irregularities in the dismissal proceedings and the third is evidence that there was no material breach of contract in the service itself). The focus of the litigation strategy is on attacking “procedural irregularities” rather than “substantial injustices”, with priority being given to the establishment or dismissal of property boards, rather than simply refuting the quality of services; invoking the relevant provisions of the civil code of the property regulations, emphasizing that the legality of the self-government of owners is an effective precondition for dismissal; and avoiding excessive obfuscation of compensation amounts and focusing on the core claims of “revocation of dismissal decisions”。
The key points in the promotion of a successful outcome are, first, the allocation of the burden of proof: property companies bear the initial burden of proof of “procedural irregularities”, without having to prove that their services are perfect and only without material breach; and, secondly, the use of administrative procedures to pre-empt: if the property management committee fails to file a file or the filing procedure is against the law, it may apply to the street office for the dismissal of its case before filing a civil action; and third, it collects testimony from the owner who does not agree to the dismissal (a copy of the property certificate is required to prove the identity of the owner), in order to prove that the dismissal decision does not reflect the will of the real owner. Only by doing so could immediate problems be resolved. Because of the different circumstances, different coping strategies are also needed, either in civil, non-suit or administrative。
It also gives you the idea that i did not speak about " writing, evidence " in the previous video, and that property companies could make good use of it, for example, by suspending the execution of the dismissal pending prosecution, or at least waiting until the outcome of the judgement。
That's one of my ideas, i don't know, just for information, but if you want to work with me on a strategy, you can contact me through a platform of personal trust, and you can explore a solution to the problem of the dismissal of property companies, perhaps a strategy. You can see my video, and i know you're on fire, and action is more useful than i thought, move, and don't miss the time。
Thank you for your attention to the video content of the “36 digital media” short video account。
