The sample defense statement is as follows:

I accept the entrustment of Hunan XXXX Co., Ltd. in accordance with the law, to serve as the litigation agent in this case, and to appear in court to participate in litigation activities. I now present the facts and law of this case The agency opinion is as follows:

In the contract dispute between the plaintiff Li cannot be established.

First, it violates the principle of relativity of contract. On January 31, 2005, the plaintiff Li XX, and the agreement has only two parties, one of which is the plaintiff Li X and the other is the defendant Chen XX.

Our company is not a party to this agreement, and has never entrusted anyone to engage in intermediary services. Therefore, the contract can only be effective for both parties and cannot bind any third party other than the parties to the contract. According to the principle of relativity of contract law, the plaintiff's request for our company to pay remuneration and liquidated damages has no legal and factual basis.

Second, is the intermediary contract established? An intermediary contract refers to a contract in which the intermediary reports the opportunity to conclude a contract to the principal or provides intermediary services for entering into the contract, and the principal pays the remuneration. The party who reports the opportunity to conclude a contract to the other party or provides intermediary services for entering into the contract is the intermediary, and the party accepting the contract is the intermediary. The party who provides the contracting opportunity and pays the remuneration is the principal.

On the surface, in this case, the plaintiff Li It is highly controversial in civil law theory circles.

Professor XX Min, a well-known civil and commercial law expert, believes that the principal in an intermediary contract can be any citizen or legal person, but the intermediary can only be a legal person or citizen engaged in intermediary business that has been registered and approved by the relevant state agency, because Brokerage activity is an intermediary activity and belongs to the category of commercial activities.

Any kind of commercial activity must be registered or approved by the relevant state agencies, even if it is a small clothing store. There is basically a consensus in the theoretical circles on this point of view. Therefore, it is worth considering whether the intermediary contract in this case is established.

From the above facts, it is clear: the key to this case lies in who is the subject of the contract and whether the contract reader is established. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim lacks factual and legal basis.

It is hoped that the above facts and agency opinions will be verified and determined by the People's Court, and the plaintiff's claims will be dismissed in accordance with the law.

Litigation agent: XXX

November 14, 20xx