近期，在某中院审理的一起合同纠纷中虹桥正瀚赢得二审改判全面胜诉。本案核心争议为双方签署的会议纪要是否具备合同的法律性质。二审法院在综合分析证据、查明事实的基础上最终采纳我所代理意见。二审判决指出，会议纪要系记录会议或磋商谈判的过程和所达成的原则性意见，通常不能认定为合同，但如果内容涉及当事人之间设立、变更或者终止民事权利义务关系，是各方当事人的一致意思表示，该意思表示内容具体明确，具有可执行性，当事人并无排除受其约束的意思，则具备了民事合同的要件，可以构成合同。该案的裁判观点虽认为会议纪要通常情况下不能认定为合同，但是并没有停留于“会议纪要”的表面文意，而是从意思表示、行文内容、权利义务条款等角度进行法律评价，降低了实践中因未能签订书面解除或终止协议所导致的债权债务关系不明确的风险。In a recent contract dispute case heard by an intermediate court, Zhenghan Law Firm achieved a full victory in the second-instance appeal with the judgment overturned in its favor. The core issue of the case was whether the meeting minutes signed by both parties possessed the legal nature of a contract. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and factual findings, the intermediate court ultimately accepted the arguments put forth by our firm. The appellate judgment noted that while meeting minutes generally serve to record the proceedings of meetings or negotiations and the principal agreements reached, they are not typically recognized as contracts. However, if the content of the minutes pertains to the establishment, modification, or termination of civil rights and obligations between the parties, reflects a mutual expression of intent, is specific and enforceable, and there is no indication that the parties intended to exclude themselves from being bound by it, then the minutes fulfill the essential elements of a civil contract and may be deemed a contract.The court’s reasoning, though acknowledging that meeting minutes are not ordinarily regarded as contracts, did not rest on the surface meaning of "meeting minutes." Instead, the court conducted a legal evaluation from the perspective of intent, substantive content, and rights and obligations clauses. This approach mitigated the practical risk of unclear creditor-debtor relationships arising from the failure to execute a written agreement to terminate or dissolve the contractual relationship.
关于我们
本文仅供参考，不应视为虹桥正瀚律师事务所或其律师出具的正式法律意见或建议。如需转载或引用本文的任何内容，请于留言区或私信沟通授权事宜，并于转载时注明来源于公众号“虹桥正瀚律师”及作者姓名。
