近日，昆山市人民法院審結了一起因“門框”和“門套”概念爭議引發(fā)的建設工程施工合同糾紛，承辦法官以嚴謹?shù)氖聦嵤崂砗蛯I(yè)的法律判斷，厘清了雙方權利義務，使案件得以圓滿解決。

　　Recently, the People's Court of Kunshan City concluded a construction contract dispute arising from a dispute over the concepts of "door frame" and "door frame". The presiding judge used rigorous factual analysis and professional legal judgment to clarify the rights and obligations of both parties, resulting in a successful resolution of the case.

　　項目落地，爭議悄然埋下

　　Project landing, controversy quietly buried

　　2021年6月，某電梯公司與某建設公司簽訂了《設備安裝合同》和《設備銷售合同》，約定由電梯公司負責某小區(qū)項目26臺電梯的采購與安裝工作，兩份合同總價款為470萬元。2024年1月，涉案26臺電梯獲得特種設備使用登記證并投入使用。

　　In June 2021, an elevator company signed an "Equipment Installation Contract" and an "Equipment Sales Contract" with a construction company, agreeing that the elevator company would be responsible for the procurement and installation of 26 elevators for a residential project, with a total contract price of 4.7 million yuan. In January 2024, 26 elevators involved in the case obtained special equipment registration certificates and were put into use.

　　項目完工后，爭議卻隨之而來。電梯公司表示已如約完成全部安裝義務，要求建設公司支付安裝尾款。建設公司則提出異議，稱電梯公司并未依約安裝“廳門門框”，其只能后續(xù)另行委托案外人某門窗廠進行安裝，故拒絕支付尾款。

　　After the completion of the project, disputes followed. The elevator company stated that it has fulfilled all installation obligations as agreed and requested the construction company to pay the final payment for the installation. The construction company raised objections, stating that the elevator company did not install the "hall door frame" as agreed, and could only entrust a third-party door and window factory to install it later, therefore refusing to pay the final payment.

　　雙方協(xié)商無果，電梯公司于2024年底訴至法院，要求建設公司支付安裝尾款約48萬余元并支付利息、違約金。建設公司提則起反訴，要求電梯公司支付其另行發(fā)包產(chǎn)生的費用40余萬元。庭審中，雙方爭議集中在：電梯公司是否完成了合同約定的全部安裝義務？建設公司表示：雙方《設備安裝合同》附件中明確包含“門框”，其技術規(guī)格表述為“廳門、門框裝修：發(fā)紋不銹鋼材質(zhì)廳門若干；門框：標準門框”，電梯公司并未安裝該部分。電梯公司表示，合同中約定的“門框”是電梯標準化的出廠配件，其已實際安裝并交付；建設公司所稱未安裝部分實為“門套”，但門套并不在雙方合同約定的施工范圍內(nèi)。

　　Both parties failed to reach an agreement, and the elevator company filed a lawsuit with the court at the end of 2024, demanding that the construction company pay the final installation payment of about 480000 yuan, as well as interest and liquidated damages. The construction company has filed a counterclaim, demanding that the elevator company pay more than 400000 yuan for the additional costs incurred from the contract. During the trial, the dispute between the two parties focused on whether the elevator company had fulfilled all the installation obligations stipulated in the contract? The construction company stated that the "door frame" is explicitly included in the attachment of the "Equipment Installation Contract" between both parties, and its technical specifications are described as "hall door and door frame decoration: several hall doors made of textured stainless steel material; door frame: standard door frame". The elevator company did not install this part. The elevator company stated that the "door frame" specified in the contract is a standardized factory accessory for elevators, which has been actually installed and delivered; The construction company claims that the uninstalled part is actually a "door frame", but the door frame is not within the construction scope agreed upon in the contract between the two parties.

　　一字之差，引發(fā)專業(yè)概念之爭

　　One word difference triggers a debate over professional concepts

　　“門框”與“門套”究竟是不是同一“部位”？為辨明這一專業(yè)概念問題，承辦法官廣泛查詢資料，深入了解建筑領域的專業(yè)知識。依據(jù)《建筑門窗術語標準》及相關建筑設計規(guī)范，“門框”是固定門扇的一種支撐結構，通常隱藏在門扇和門套里面，從外部不易直接看到；而“門套”則是用于遮蓋門框與墻體縫隙、保護墻角的裝飾構件，通常與室內(nèi)墻面平齊或者略微突出，在電梯外部直接可見。兩者在名稱、功能、安裝位置上均存在明顯差異。

　　Is the "door frame" and "door frame" the same "part"? To clarify this professional concept issue, the presiding judge extensively searched for information and gained a deep understanding of the professional knowledge in the field of architecture. According to the "Standard Terminology for Building Doors and Windows" and related architectural design specifications, "door frame" is a supporting structure for fixing door leaves, usually hidden inside the door leaf and door frame, and not easily visible from the outside; The "door frame" is a decorative component used to cover the gaps between the door frame and the wall, and protect the corners of the wall. It is usually flush with or slightly protruding from the interior wall and can be directly seen outside the elevator. There are significant differences between the two in terms of name, function, and installation location.

　　涉案電梯生產(chǎn)商向法院出具了《情況說明》，詳細闡釋技術規(guī)格中的“門框”為5cm寬標準門框，是電梯門扇與電梯門洞固定的框架部分，與裝飾性門套有明顯區(qū)別。

　　The elevator manufacturer involved in the case issued a "Statement of Situation" to the court, detailing that the "door frame" in the technical specifications is a 5cm wide standard door frame, which is a fixed frame part between the elevator door leaf and the elevator door opening, and is significantly different from decorative door frames.

　　值得注意的是，建設公司雖稱另行委托某門窗廠安裝完成案涉“門框”，但在其提交的相關采購合同中，產(chǎn)品名稱明確為“電梯門套”，而非“門框”。

　　It is worth noting that although the construction company claimed to have separately commissioned a door and window factory to install the "door frame" involved in the project, in the relevant procurement contract it submitted, the product name was clearly stated as "elevator door frame" rather than "door frame". ?

　　綜合以上信息，可以明確：在建筑與裝飾裝修領域，“門框”與“門套”雖僅一字之差，卻是兩個截然不同的概念。結合雙方陳述及現(xiàn)場照片等證據(jù)，能夠確定建設公司認為電梯公司未安裝的廳門“門框”實際為電梯門套。

　　Based on the above information, it can be clarified that in the field of architecture and decoration, "door frame" and "door frame" are two completely different concepts, although they differ only by one word. Based on the statements of both parties and evidence such as on-site photos, it can be determined that the hall door "door frame" that the construction company believes was not installed by the elevator company is actually an elevator door frame.

　　深入審查，明確合同約定

　　Thoroughly review and clarify the contractual provisions

　　焦點Jiao Dian核心概念已明晰，法院審理的焦點在于：電梯門套是否屬于雙方合同約定的施工范圍？

　　The core concept of Jiao Dian has been clarified, and the focus of the court's trial is whether the elevator door frame falls within the construction scope agreed upon in the contract between the two parties?

　　在雙方于2021年6月所簽訂合同附件中，對候梯廳門的技術規(guī)格均采用“門框”表述，并未提及門套相關內(nèi)容，施工圖紙中也未標注有關門套的信息。

　　In the annex of the contract signed by both parties in June 2021, the technical specifications for the elevator hall door were expressed as "door frame", without mentioning the relevant content of the door frame. The construction drawings also did not indicate any information about the door frame.

　　電梯公司向法院提交的微信聊天記錄顯示：2022年8月，建設公司項目負責人曾向電梯公司項目負責人發(fā)送補充圖紙及一份第三方報價單，其中明確列有“廳門大門套”一項并單獨報價，這表明門套不屬于原合同范圍，需單獨約定和計價。且門套部分價格較高，建設公司主張門套包含在電梯公司施工范圍內(nèi)，但卻未在合同中進行明確約定，明顯不符合交易常理。

　　The WeChat chat records submitted by the elevator company to the court show that in August 2022, the project leader of the construction company sent supplementary drawings and a third-party quotation to the project leader of the elevator company, which clearly listed the item of "hall door frame" and quoted separately. This indicates that the frame is not within the scope of the original contract and needs to be separately agreed upon and priced. And the price of the door frame is relatively high. The construction company claims that the door frame is included in the construction scope of the elevator company, but it is not clearly stipulated in the contract, which obviously does not conform to the common sense of the transaction.

　　在仔細審查雙方提交的各類證據(jù)后，承辦法官結合案件實際情況，認定電梯門套不屬于電梯公司的合同施工范圍。電梯公司已履行了供貨安裝義務，涉案電梯驗收合格并投入使用，付款條件已達成，建設公司理應按照合同約定支付安裝款。

　　After carefully reviewing the various evidence submitted by both parties, the presiding judge determined that the elevator door frame did not fall within the scope of the elevator company's contract construction based on the actual situation of the case. The elevator company has fulfilled its supply and installation obligations, and the elevator involved has been accepted and put into use. The payment terms have been met, and the construction company should pay the installation fee according to the contract.

　　最終，法院判決被告建設公司支付原告電梯公司剩余工程款48萬余元及違約金，駁回原告的其他訴訟請求；同時駁回反訴原告建設公司的全部反訴請求。一審宣判后，被告不服提起上訴，二審法院判決駁回上訴，維持原判。

　　In the end, the court ruled that the defendant construction company should pay the remaining project funds of over 480000 yuan and liquidated damages to the plaintiff elevator company, and rejected the plaintiff's other claims; Simultaneously reject all counterclaim requests from the plaintiff, Construction Company. After the first instance verdict, the defendant appealed and the second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

　　這場因“門框”與“門套”概念混淆引發(fā)的糾紛，在法院的公正審理下得以妥善解決，既依法保障了電梯公司的合同權益，也促使建設公司明晰自身責任，正視并承擔管理疏漏帶來的后果。

　　The dispute caused by the confusion between the concepts of "door frame" and "door frame" was properly resolved under the fair trial of the court, which not only protected the contractual rights and interests of the elevator company in accordance with the law, but also prompted the construction company to clarify its own responsibilities, face up to and bear the consequences of management negligence.

　　該案再次警示建筑行業(yè)：精準表述合同條款、逐項確認技術規(guī)范以及過程留痕管理，是防范爭議、控制成本、保障工期的重要舉措。各市場主體在締約、履約及結算全過程中，應從源頭杜絕因概念含混、溝通失真而產(chǎn)生的履約風險，避免不必要的糾紛，共同營造規(guī)范、透明、可預期的建筑市場秩序值得注意的是，建設公司雖稱另行委托某門窗廠安裝完成案涉“門框”，但在其提交的相關采購合同中，產(chǎn)品名稱明確為“電梯門套”，而非“門框”。

　　This case once again warns the construction industry that precise expression of contract terms, confirmation of technical specifications item by item, and process tracking management are important measures to prevent disputes, control costs, and ensure project completion. During the entire process of contracting, performance, and settlement, all market entities should eliminate performance risks caused by vague concepts and distorted communication from the source, avoid unnecessary disputes, and jointly create a standardized, transparent, and predictable construction market order. It is worth noting that although the construction company claimed to have entrusted a certain door and window factory to install the "door frame" involved in the case, the product name was clearly stated as "elevator door frame" instead of "door frame" in the relevant procurement contract it submitted. ?

　　綜合以上信息，可以明確：在建筑與裝飾裝修領域，“門框”與“門套”雖僅一字之差，卻是兩個截然不同的概念。結合雙方陳述及現(xiàn)場照片等證據(jù)，能夠確定建設公司認為電梯公司未安裝的廳門“門框”實際為電梯門套。

　　Based on the above information, it can be clarified that in the field of architecture and decoration, "door frame" and "door frame" are two completely different concepts, although they differ only by one word. Based on the statements of both parties and evidence such as on-site photos, it can be determined that the hall door "door frame" that the construction company believes was not installed by the elevator company is actually an elevator door frame.

　　深入審查，明確合同約定

　　Thoroughly review and clarify the contractual provisions

　　焦點Jiao Dian核心概念已明晰，法院審理的焦點在于：電梯門套是否屬于雙方合同約定的施工范圍？

　　The core concept of Jiao Dian has been clarified, and the focus of the court's trial is whether the elevator door frame falls within the construction scope agreed upon in the contract between the two parties?

　　在雙方于2021年6月所簽訂合同附件中，對候梯廳門的技術規(guī)格均采用“門框”表述，并未提及門套相關內(nèi)容，施工圖紙中也未標注有關門套的信息。

　　In the annex of the contract signed by both parties in June 2021, the technical specifications for the elevator hall door were expressed as "door frame", without mentioning the relevant content of the door frame. The construction drawings also did not indicate any information about the door frame.

　　電梯公司向法院提交的微信聊天記錄顯示：2022年8月，建設公司項目負責人曾向電梯公司項目負責人發(fā)送補充圖紙及一份第三方報價單，其中明確列有“廳門大門套”一項并單獨報價，這表明門套不屬于原合同范圍，需單獨約定和計價。且門套部分價格較高，建設公司主張門套包含在電梯公司施工范圍內(nèi)，但卻未在合同中進行明確約定，明顯不符合交易常理。

　　The WeChat chat records submitted by the elevator company to the court show that in August 2022, the project leader of the construction company sent supplementary drawings and a third-party quotation to the project leader of the elevator company, which clearly listed the item of "hall door frame" and quoted separately. This indicates that the frame is not within the scope of the original contract and needs to be separately agreed upon and priced. And the price of the door frame is relatively high. The construction company claims that the door frame is included in the construction scope of the elevator company, but it is not clearly stipulated in the contract, which obviously does not conform to the common sense of the transaction.

　　在仔細審查雙方提交的各類證據(jù)后，承辦法官結合案件實際情況，認定電梯門套不屬于電梯公司的合同施工范圍。電梯公司已履行了供貨安裝義務，涉案電梯驗收合格并投入使用，付款條件已達成，建設公司理應按照合同約定支付安裝款。

　　After carefully reviewing the various evidence submitted by both parties, the presiding judge determined that the elevator door frame did not fall within the scope of the elevator company's contract construction based on the actual situation of the case. The elevator company has fulfilled its supply and installation obligations, and the elevator involved has been accepted and put into use. The payment terms have been met, and the construction company should pay the installation fee according to the contract.

　　最終，法院判決被告建設公司支付原告電梯公司剩余工程款48萬余元及違約金，駁回原告的其他訴訟請求；同時駁回反訴原告建設公司的全部反訴請求。一審宣判后，被告不服提起上訴，二審法院判決駁回上訴，維持原判。

　　In the end, the court ruled that the defendant construction company should pay the remaining project funds of over 480000 yuan and liquidated damages to the plaintiff elevator company, and rejected the plaintiff's other claims; Simultaneously reject all counterclaim requests from the plaintiff, Construction Company. After the first instance verdict, the defendant appealed and the second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

　　這場因“門框”與“門套”概念混淆引發(fā)的糾紛，在法院的公正審理下得以妥善解決，既依法保障了電梯公司的合同權益，也促使建設公司明晰自身責任，正視并承擔管理疏漏帶來的后果。

　　The dispute caused by the confusion between the concepts of "door frame" and "door frame" was properly resolved under the fair trial of the court, which not only protected the contractual rights and interests of the elevator company in accordance with the law, but also prompted the construction company to clarify its own responsibilities, face up to and bear the consequences of management negligence.

　　該案再次警示建筑行業(yè)：精準表述合同條款、逐項確認技術規(guī)范以及過程留痕管理，是防范爭議、控制成本、保障工期的重要舉措。各市場主體在締約、履約及結算全過程中，應從源頭杜絕因概念含混、溝通失真而產(chǎn)生的履約風險，避免不必要的糾紛，共同營造規(guī)范、透明、可預期的建筑市場秩序

　　This case once again warns the construction industry that precise expression of contract terms, confirmation of technical specifications item by item, and process tracking management are important measures to prevent disputes, control costs, and ensure project completion. During the entire process of contracting, performance, and settlement, all market entities should eliminate performance risks caused by vague concepts and distorted communication from the source, avoid unnecessary disputes, and jointly create a standardized, transparent, and predictable order in the construction market

　　本文由 淄博電梯門套廠家  友情奉獻.更多有關的知識請點擊  http://yqzzdz.com.cn/   真誠的態(tài)度.為您提供為全面的服務.更多有關的知識我們將會陸續(xù)向大家奉獻.敬請期待.

　　This article is a friendly contribution from Zibo Elevator Door Frame Manufacturer For more related knowledge, please click http://yqzzdz.com.cn/ Sincere attitude To provide you with comprehensive services We will gradually contribute more relevant knowledge to everyone Coming soon.