【案情概述 Case Brief】

2018年6月上海某精密机械公司（下称A公司）与江苏某数控车床公司（下称B公司）签署了《设备定做开发合同》，但B公司在合同上加盖的是其公司法定代表人的私章，未加盖公章。

A Shanghai Company (hereinafter the“Company A”) and a Jiangsu Company (hereinafter the “Company B”) have entered into a Contract for Work for some equipment products in the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter the “Contract”) in June, 2018.(Note: A contract for work is a contract whereby the contractor shall, in light of the requirements of the ordering party, complete certain work and deliver the results therefrom, and the ordering party pays the remuneration therefor. Work includes processing, ordering,) The Contract was sealed with the personal signing bar of the Company B’s Legal Representative instead of the duly signing bar of the Company B.

A公司开始组织人力进行设计和开发。因B公司订单不足，该设备B公司不想继续履行合同。双方在随后的沟通过程中产生合同纠纷，诉至法院。其中争议焦点之一便是：用私章签《设备定做开发合同》是否成立.

Company A began to design and produce. Due to the shortage of orders, Company B expressed explicitly by its conduct that it would fail to perform the obligations under the Contract. Later, Company A filed an appeal to the people’s court on contractual dispute against Company B. One of dispute focal points was whether the Contract came to effect only with the personal signing bar of the Company B’s Legal Representative.

【办案分享 Experience】

接到案件委托后，律师做了大量的分析和判例研究，从文字表述看，合同是B公司与A公司签署的，但从盖章落款上看，却又不直接体现B公司的意思表示。

After entrusted by Company A, Lawyer analyzed the evidences.It was written that the Contract would be valid only after chopped by the both parties. In fact，the Contract was lack of the duly signing bar of the Company B.

本案合同纠纷的核心问题是，用私章签订的《设备定做开发合同》是否成立，该合同对B公司是否具有法律拘束力。

The core issues are whether the Contract was valid and whether the Contract was binding on the Company B.

律师认为，依法成立的合同，对当事人具有法律约束力，并受法律保护。当事人达成合意是合同的成立的必备要件。

The Contract established according to law is protected by law and shall be legally binding on the parties thereto. It is necessary for the establishment of the contract to agree with each other.

《民法典》第四百九十条　当事人采用合同书形式订立合同的，自当事人均签名、盖章或者按指印时合同成立。在签名、盖章或者按指印之前，当事人一方已经履行主要义务，对方接受时，该合同成立。该条明确了当事人在合同书上签字或盖章的时间为合同成立的时间，不仅确认了当事人达成合意的外在表现形式为签字或者盖章，而且赋予了盖章与签字在合同成立上同等的法律效力。

The Civil Code Article 32 If the parties conclude a contract in the form of a written contract, the contract is established when both parties signed or sealed the contract. This article specifies that the time when the parties sign or seal the contract is the same time as the contract is established. This article not only confirms that the external manifestation of the both parties is signature or seal, but also recognizes the seal and signature is the same as the legal effect on the establishment of the contract.

因此，经当事人签字或者盖章的合同应该是当事人达成合意的体现，对双方当事人具有法律拘束力。依法成立的法人或其他组织均有登记备案的公章，经登记备案的公章对外具有公示效力，所以，通常情况下，法人或者其他组织在对外签订合同时，采用盖章的形式。而自然人的私章没有登记备案的要求，对外不具有公示效力，在私章所代表的一方否认该私章为其所有，盖章行为是其所为时，该方当事人实质是否认与对方当事人达成合意成立了合同关系，此时就涉及合同关系是否成立的举证责任的分配问题。

The Contract became effective with the duly sign and seal and was binding on the both parties. Each Legal entity has duly signing bar that was filed at the Police Station. Usually, legal entities sign contracts with the duly signing bar. Because the personal signing bar of the Legal Representative is not compulsory to be filed at the Police Station，whether the seal was on behalf of the Company B involves the burden to provide evidence for its claims.

根据《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》（2008年调整）第五条的规定，在合同纠纷案件中，主张合同关系成立的一方当事人对合同订立的事实承担举证责任。

即在双方当事人就合同关系是否成立存在争议的情况下，应由主张合同关系立的一方当事人承担举证责任。因此，在私章所代表的一方公司B否认该私章为其所有，盖章行为是其所为，即否认与对方成立合同关系时，公司A应由主张证明该枚私章为对方所有以及盖章的行为为对方所为或对方委托他人所为。

Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures (2008 Amendment) Article 5 In a contractual dispute, the party that claims the establishment of contractual relationship and the contract has taken effect shall be responsible for providing evidences to prove that the contract has been concluded and it has taken effect.

According to the above-mentioned article, when one party denied the establishment of the contract，the other party should be responsible for providing the evidences to prove that the personal signing bar was belong to the Company B and it was chopped by this company.

就本案来说，B公司否认合同书上的私章为其所有，也否认在合同书上盖过私章，实质是否认与A公司订立过涉案设备定做开发合同。在此情况下，A公司应该举证证明其与B公司之间成立了合同关系，即私章为B公司所有且盖章行为也为B公司所为。

In the circumstance of this case, Company B denied the establishment of the contract, and Company A shall be responsible for providing the evidences to prove that the Contract became effective.

综上，在双方当事人就合同关系是否成立存在争议的情况下，应由主张合同关系成立的一方当事人承担举证责任。

In conclusion, in a contractual dispute, the party that claims the establishment of contractual relationship and the contract has taken effect shall be responsible for providing evidences to prove that the contract has been concluded and it has taken effect.

以上是律师今天为大家分享的合同名字与盖章不一致的情况下如何处理合同纠纷的经验，如果您想获取更多关于合同纠纷处理的建议，可以联系律师。

Lawyer legal team sums up the experience that how shall the legal entities to handle the contractual dispute about that the written contract is inconsistent with the duly seal. If you have any further question, please do not hesitate to contact Lawyer.

特别声明Notes：

以上文章仅代表作者本人观点，不代表上海锦坤律师事务所或其律师出具的任何形式之法律意见或建议。如需转载或引用该等文章的任何内容，请私信沟通授权事宜。如您有意就相关话题进一步交流或探讨，欢迎与本所或律师本人联系。