下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
版权产业是文化创意产业的主体，在数字经济中占据越来越重要的地位。计算机软件开发、网络游戏开发、广告设计、建筑设计等开发合同蓬勃发展，从网络游戏、动漫形象、游戏衍生玩具、企业视觉形象、商业标识、广告文案到建筑设计图、工程设计图等，都可以成为委托设计合同的客体。委托设计既可以基于委托方现有著作权等知识产权进行再开发，也可以由受托方完全独立完成设计。在前一种情况下，委托设计是建立在委托方许可受托方使用现有知识产权的基础上的，但因当事人合同争议的焦点在于委托设计的成果，而非知识产权许可，故归于著作权开发合同。虽然不同类型的著作权开发合同各有特点，但当事人之间的争议多集中于有关成果的验收、交付及费用支付等方面。
软件开发合同是关于软件产品开发、平台搭建、系统设计的合同，技术成果主要是软件代码、系统及其相关文档。其中，软件代码是最为主要、核心的成果形式，软件系统运行则是软件开发合同的目的。软件开发一般采用委托开发方式，一般约定委托方享有技术成果的软件著作权等全部知识产权。在此类合同中，当事人关于知识产权归属的争议较少见，争议焦点常常集中在技术成果的交付上面。与货物买卖等有形商品的交易不同，软件开发形成的技术成果有其自身的特点。委托方与受托方容易在软件成果的交付方式、范围、验收标准等方面发生争议。软件开发合同明确且详细地约定应交付的技术成果的内容、程序及验收标准对避免与解决相关争议非常重要。
软件开发合同的技术成果是否达到了合同约定的标准与质量，经常是当事人争议的焦点。由于软件成果的技术性、时效性较强，委托方对受托方交付的软件产品应及时按照约定的标准进行验收，一旦发现交付的成果存在缺失、缺陷、无法运行等问题，应及时按照约定方式与程序向受托方提出，由其纠正软件使之正确运行，或者作出验收不合格的结论，从而酌情减少应付的费用。
在管理软件许可、开发、服务合同争议案（案例1
）中，当事人双方合同约定，申请人向被申请人提供软件许可、软件定制开发服务与实施服务等，被申请人支付相应费用。申请人主张，被申请人应支付拖欠的服务费尾款。被申请人则主张，申请人未按合同约定期限要求完成相应模块开发任务，也未提交验收所要求必备文件以及履行开发系统验收程序，已移交被申请人的开发系统诸多模块无法使用，其行为构成实质性违约；应按合同总价款未结尾款金额为基数相应地减低服务费价款。依据当事人合同的约定，申请人保证软件自交付时起即能够根据软件文档充分地运行，如在该期间软件未能依照申请人的保证运行，申请人应当承诺纠正软件使其正确运行，或者让用户免费使用该软件。合同还约定，在申请人不履行或者不充分履行合同义务的情况下，被申请人行使合同权利追究违约责任的程序与方式如下：被申请人应当就申请人该等不履行或不充分履行义务的情况作出书面通知，并准许违约方在收到违约通知的30天内纠正违约状况。
仲裁庭认为，被申请人本有非常充分的时间发出违约通知，责令申请人限期纠正，严格按照被申请人要求免费解决所有问题直至完全符合要求，但却并未依约通知申请人或者提出纠正要求。当事人合同关于违约通知的条款使用了“应当”一词，表明非违约方如追究违约方责任，只能依据约定的程序和方式提出；如果脱离约定的程序与方式，则其违约主张缺乏合同依据。
当事人合同约定，本项目验收具体成员和验收行使由被申请人确定；由被申请人组织项目最终验收；验收/审核不合格或不完全合格的，或者在本合同约定期限内发现系统缺陷及其他质量的问题或发现不符合设计要求、合同要求的，申请人应当严格按照被申请人的要求免费给予合理解决直至完全符合要求。由于被申请人享有组织、决定验收的权利，并不存在无法验收的情况。如果被申请人认为申请人提交的文件不全或者不当，完全可以做出验收/审核不合格或不完全合格的验收结论。然而，被申请人未能组织、完成对申请人提交软件系统的验收，未能形成申请人提交系统不合格的经过确认的验收结论，导致无法证明申请人交付的软件产品不合格构成实质性违约。因此，仲裁庭裁决，被申请人仍应支付约定的服务费尾款。
软件开发产生的技术成果虽然是以源程序代码、设计文档、可运行程序的形式呈现的，但是受托人交付开发成果并非简单地向委托人提供代码或文档等有形载体，而是应保证所交付的软件产品、系统能够正常运行。软件成果能否正常运行是判断受托方是否履行了交付义务的根本标准。
在移动网络技术平台搭建及软件开发合作协议争议案（案例2）中，当事人双方签订合作协议，约定申请人委托被申请人开发有关的软件并搭建运营平台，被申请人为申请人提供软件平台运营的支撑服务，故双方形成开发、服务、合作的综合性合同关系。合作协议约定，双方合作过程中产生的计算机软件设计、开发文档、程序源代码、操作说明等知识产权归申请人所有。双方当事人对于合作期间、合作事项中的知识产权归属均无异议。但是对于被申请人是否将上述知识产权的有形载体交付给申请人存在争议。合作协议约定，被申请人同意将软件平台及平台的所有系统文件包括但不限于源程序、设计文档、可运行程序等交付给申请人，被申请人保证至少三个月的交接周期，以保证系统正常运行。
申请人主张，被申请人未能将项目及设计、开发文档，程序源代码交付给申请人，导致“申请人不能在该系统上进行维护、升级、更改，不能保证系统的正常运行”。但是，申请人未能提供相应证据证明其上述主张。相反，申请人提交了6份公证证据，分别制作于当事人合作期内，显示其运行的“软件平台”“手机挂号信产品”均能够正常登录，各类功能能够正常运行，证明被申请人开发的软件系统在双方当事人约定的三个月交接期内可以正常运行。申请人未能举证证明其主张，仲裁庭对其请求不予支持。
下述案例（案例3）更进一步说明，软件开发合同的技术成果交付必须反映软件产品的特性，体现现代信息社会互联网服务的特点，符合合同履行目的。该案中，为了使承载互联网项目软件产品的设备能够实际运行采用了托管的交货方式，与传统的将设备交由申请人物理控制、支配的方式明显不同。
案例3：网络互动音乐社交平台开发协议争议案
当事人双方签订客户协议约定，申请人为开发和建立网络互动音乐社交平台，由被申请人提供Flex System产品、软件产品、Flex System现场服务、软件现场支持服务、运维服务。申请人为购买被申请人提供的产品和服务支付相应的价款。客户协议还约定，A公司提供网络互动在线音乐社交平台整体商业规划和项目群管理一期服务，B公司提供网络互动在线音乐社交平台建设服务，苏州C公司提供网络带宽服务。
申请人主张，被申请人在收取申请人合同价款后，在合同约定的履行期限内，以及申请人按协议约定给出的30日的补救期限内，一直未按合同的约定完成产品、程序和服务的交付义务，被申请人已严重违反了双方合同约定，双方合同约定的解除合同的条件已经成就，被申请人依法应当承担向申请人退还合同价款的责任。
（一）软件产品的交付
客户协议约定，被申请人向申请人提供产品、软件与服务，应当保证所交付的产品能够在系统中运行；交付日期是指被申请人向申请人或申请人指定的代理人交付产品之日；鉴于被申请人交付的产品必须使用电信增值服务，被申请人向申请人指定的提供商C公司申请互联网线路为期4个月的服务。
申请人提供了当事人双方与C公司于客户协议同日签署的协议，约定被申请人依据申请人指示订购C公司产品服务，申请人向被申请人支付服务款项后，被申请人向C公司支付相应服务款项。因此，当事人双方与C公司签署的带宽服务协议仅限于服务当事人客户协议项下的项目，是对“客户协议”约定内容的实施。
从上述合同约定及案外实施协议可见，由于被申请人所交付的产品需要在系统中运行，被申请人为履行合同义务必须使用电信增值服务，因此申请人“指定”被申请人订购C公司产品服务，其中包括“妥善保管被申请人托管的设备”。
既然C公司仅限于为“本客户协议项下的项目”提供服务，其所保管的托管设备也应是“本客户协议项下的项目”的设备，只能是被申请人依约交付的设备。
当事人双方均认可，当事人双方与C公司签署的协议已经实际履行，申请人向被申请人支付了约定期限内的服务款项后，被申请人向C公司支付了相应服务款项。这证明C公司提供了约定的服务，包括妥善保管被申请人托管设备的服务。因此，仲裁庭认为，申请人指定C公司接受被申请人依约交付的产品、设备，C公司就是客户协议约定的申请人指定的收货人。
申请人所在地为珠海市，但是客户协议约定被申请人交货地点为C公司所在地苏州，也进一步印证C公司就是申请人指定的收货人。综上所述，被申请人向C公司交付产品，符合客户协议关于产品交付的约定，并未违约。
（二）交付证明
客户协议约定，如果被申请人以有形介质的形式交付程序，则被申请人的交付责任应直至其将该等程序交付给承运人为止。
在本案中，被申请人提供了“送货单”及承运人证明等证据，证明收货地址为苏州C公司。这些证据证明，被申请人作为卖方，依照客户协议的约定，将产品、硬件交付给了其承运人，送往约定的交货地点，交给申请人指定的收货人，履行了交付产品硬件的义务。
（三）设备与硬件的归还
申请人提交的证据显示，申请人高管邮件告知被申请人，申请人与被申请人之间的合同已经于2013年到期终止，被申请人应当将合同项下的设备与硬件产品移交、归还给申请人。申请人还提交了于2015年3月25日发给被申请人的律师函证据，其中也要求被申请人将合同项下属于申请人的设备与硬件归还（return）于申请人。
仲裁庭认为，申请人要求被申请人在合同期满终止后“归还”设备与硬件，这与合同项下“交付”设备与硬件是两个完全不同的问题。交货是被申请人履行合同义务的问题，归还设备与硬件则是在当事人之间的合同期限届满、合同关系终止之后的善后问题。
仲裁庭注意到，申请人高管的陈述明确区分了归还与交付的不同，认可两者分别适用不同的程序。交货的程序在客户协议中已有明确的约定，但是客户协议期满终止后被申请人如何向申请人归还设备、硬件的程序，尚需被申请人另行提供予申请人。
在客户协议期满终止之后，申请人作为设备、硬件的财产所有人，有权要求被申请人归还设备、硬件，移交设备、硬件的控制与支配权，但是不能因此矢口否认被申请人已经依约交货的事实。仲裁庭注意到，被申请人明确表示愿意向申请人归还有关设备、硬件，并提供必要配合。
（四）软件产品交付的特殊性
在客户协议项下，申请人要建立一个类似卡拉OK的音乐爱好者唱歌的网络音乐平台，需要设备、软件和系统的支持。因此，客户协议约定，当被申请人在交易内容及附件中明确说明其向申请人提供的产品是为了作为一个系统运行时，被申请人保证产品按照其规格说明进行安装相互之间就可以兼容运行，此项保证附加于被申请人其他适用的保证之上。
由此可见，被申请人向申请人提供所开发的产品、软件与服务，不仅应“交货”，还应保证所交付的产品与软件、服务相结合得以在系统中“运行”。虽然交货是前提，但是产品能够运行才是合同的目的。当然，被申请人所交付的产品能够在系统中运行，并不等于申请人所称的项目完成。根据客户协议的约定，除被申请人外，还需要A公司、B公司、C公司各司其职，才能使项目完成。
为了保障被申请人所交付的产品能够在系统中运行，客户协议特别约定了C公司提供网络带宽服务，该电信增值服务仅限于服务于本客户协议项下的项目。也正因为被申请人交付的产品必须使用苏州C公司所提供的互联网服务，所以申请人虽然在签订客户协议时明示其所在地为珠海市，但是却指定被申请人的交货地点为苏州。
申请人系地处珠海的文化公司，并没有将用于互联网项目的设备运往珠海自己支配、控制的必要，因此当事人双方约定将设备交付苏州C公司托管。软件产品托管的交货方式显然不同于传统的由申请人物理控制、支配交付设备的方式，是基于现代信息社会互联网服务的特点、符合合同履行目的的交货方式。因此，申请人关于被申请人“未将硬件及软件产品转移给申请人控制、支配”的主张，并不符合客户协议约定的被申请人交付软硬件产品的要求。
总之，仲裁庭认为，申请人未能举证证明被申请人存在违约行为，申请人所主张的解除合同的理由不能成立，申请人无权请求被申请人返还依照客户协议约定支付的产品与服务。
网络游戏已经发展成为庞大的产业，需要不断有新开发的游戏产品投入市场。在游戏开发合同中，围绕游戏成果的交付、开发期限、设计费用等问题，当事人容易发生争议。
随着我国游戏产业的发展，动漫形象设计成为全球许多灵活就业年轻人的选择。我国游戏厂商委托境外独立画师完成动漫项目的情况屡见不鲜，关于委托设计服务的争议逐渐增多。受托方交付的设计成果一旦经委托方验收与接受，委托方就不能反悔，不能拒绝付费，否则将承担违约责任。
在独立承包商创意服务协议争议案（案例4）中，被申请人委托申请人设计动漫形象，提供约定的工作成果，被申请人在申请人交付完整、满意的项目服务后，立即支付项目服务约定的报酬。协议约定，申请人为被申请人完成的工作成果，均归属于被申请人；被申请人对于申请人的工作成果拥有独家著作权，并享有完整的使用权；申请人永久免除被申请人有关本协议和服务的著作权等权利索赔的责任。申请人主张，被申请人拒绝支付2019年8月、9月两个自然月的服务费与2019年10月1日至18日的服务费。协议约定，在被申请人认可（acceptance）之前，申请人同意按照被申请人的要求对工作成果和服务作出修订；付款应在服务和工作成果完成、交付和由被申请人全权决定通过（approval）之后的7个工作日内完成。因此，申请人向被申请人交付的工作成果与服务，被申请人拥有决定是否认可（acceptance）与通过（approval）的全部权利。被申请人只有在认可申请人交付的工作成果与服务“完整”与“满意”的7个工作日之后，才应向申请人支付相应的报酬。
申请人举证证明，被申请人不仅收到了申请人交付的所述月份的工作成果与服务，而且确认将向申请人支付相关的费用，并将未支付的金额称为“欠款”。被申请人未能提供任何证据证明，曾对申请人提交的上述两个自然月的工作成果与服务表示不满意或者不完整，或者曾要求申请人对其工作成果与服务进行任何修订；被申请人反复向申请人申明的未付款理由是被申请人自身存在的财务问题或者金融危机。被申请人的行为足以证明，申请人交付的工作成果与服务既完整又令被申请人满意，符合协议约定的向申请人付款的条件。
申请人所承担的任务是被申请人逐月发派的，申请人的报酬也是每月结算的。按照约定，申请人所要“全部完成”的工作是指每个月的全部工作，绝非申请人在整个服务期（2019年5月6日至2020年5月5日）内12个月的工作。与此相对应，申请人提供服务的每个自然月，当事人均应计算该月报酬的“总额”。总之，申请人请求被申请人支付所述各月份的服务费有合同依据，仲裁庭应予以支持。
被申请人在确认申请人交付了符合付款条件的工作成果与服务后，非但没有依约“立即支付”申请人报酬，反而一直以自身存在“财务问题”或者“金融危机”等为借口，拖延向申请人付款，导致申请人未能及时获得应得的报酬，申请人由此遭受的利息损失，应予赔偿。
游戏等流行文化传播具有很强的时效性，一旦过时商业价值将大打折扣。游戏开发协议一般约定比较严格的开发周期，以保障游戏产品及时面世产生收益。因此，受托方未能在约定期限完成游戏开发，将承担比较严重的违约后果。下述案例就是一个生动的例证。
在游戏开发协议争议案（案例5）中，申请人拥有某动漫的知识产权，委托被申请人开发该动漫的第一代移动平台游戏、手办玩具底座及阅读底座之设计方案；申请人按照约定，支付开发费用及分享标的游戏的营运利润。当事人协议约定，被申请人应当在约定的委托开发周期（2016年4月1日至2016年12月31日）内完成游戏开发，若因被申请人原因，致使被申请人未能按照合同约定的期限完成相应阶段的开发或不能通过申请人的验收，逾期超过60日的，申请人有权单方解除合同，并要求被申请人承担其他违约责任。申请人举证证明，被申请人面临破产，至今未能交付开发成果。
仲裁庭认为，被申请人虽然曾于2016年8月1日向申请人提交了部分开发成果，但是因自身原因未能完成游戏开发，“协议”订立的目的未能实现，申请人不应向被申请人支付开发费用。因此，申请人有权依约解除协议，协议解除后，被申请人应当返还申请人已经支付的开发费用。
申请人主张，被申请人的严重违约造成时间成本的浪费，即便申请人另行委托，开发游戏的上线将面临市场热度降低的后果，申请人将遭受无法弥补的损失，被申请人应向申请人支付可得利益损失。仲裁庭认为，协议约定表明当事人双方对于标的游戏商业化运营后可得利润有明确的预期，被申请人赔偿申请人因违约行为造成的可得利益的损失有法律与合同的依据，应予以支持。
委托开发的游戏产品必须经过多轮测试，由受托方不断修改调整游戏版本中出现的问题（bugs），才能完成最终版本，并交付委托方。在下述案例（案例6）中，合同约定了“网络游戏公开测试版本”“不删档测试版本”的交付期限。当事人对此发生争议。仲裁庭发现，协议项下的开放内测（不删档测试）是指受托方提供的开放测试游戏版本，经委托方正式书面确认后，由委托方在本协议授权区域内对用户提供的大规模测试的行为；正式公开测试的特征是授权区域内所有用户自由激活游戏进入测试。依据协议的约定，开放测试版本与不删档测试版本及公开测试版本基本等同，并无实质性区别。在协议履行中，受托方未能严格按期交付游戏产品，但是经双方充分的沟通，委托方对于受托方履约瑕疵予以容忍，保障了游戏交付这一核心合同义务得以履行。委托方在事后否认双方曾有的共识，不符合诚信原则。由于受托方已经完成开发工作、交付了游戏产品，委托方应当支付相应的授权金。同理，虽然委托方未能按期支付授权金，但是当事人双方在履约过程中不断沟通、协调，对履约瑕疵已经予以宽宥。如果在合同履行过程中，当事人双方均锱铢必较，申请人交付游戏产品相应版本的日期与被申请人支付授权金的日期均不能有任何调整与宽松，相互纠缠、相互追究迟延责任，当事人双方的核心义务均无法实现，游戏产品将无法付诸商业化运营，当事人双方也将无法获得收益，协议履行将不会是现在呈现的局面。因此，委托方也不应承担迟延支付授权金所产生的违约金。
案例6：游戏开发代理协议争议案
申请人与被申请人于2011年8月签订网络游戏独家协议，申请人负责相关网络游戏产品的研发、改版，向被申请人交付该产品的相应版本，并经由被申请人测试、验收，支付相应的授权金；申请人授权被申请人为相关网络游戏产品的独家总代理、独家运营商，被申请人在商业化运营开始后支付分成款。
协议约定，被申请人正在申请注册新的运营公司，在新运营公司正式成立后一个月之内，被申请人将属于本协议的全部协议义务转移给新公司，由三方公司签署本协议主体变更协议。被申请人辩称，虽然三方没有签订正式的主体变更协议，但是通过事实行为弥补了未签订书面协议的缺陷。仲裁庭认为，协议主体的变更属于协议的重大变更，在没有书面变更协议的情况下，仅靠“事实行为”变更不可行，协议只能以书面形式修改并由双方被授权的代表签署。新公司向申请人支付分成款、经营协议游戏产品等行为，因申请人并未提出异议，可以被视为被申请人对于合同相应的义务的履行，但是，被申请人作为协议当事人，应当对于新公司履行合同义务的行为及其后果承担责任。
对于申请人的仲裁请求，仲裁庭的具体裁决意见如下：
（一）授权金
当事人协议约定，被申请人应当支付申请人授权金；被申请人已经向申请人支付了第一笔、第二笔授权金。申请人请求被申请人支付剩余的第三笔、第四笔授权金。被申请人主张，申请人迟延5个月交付游戏公开测试版本予被申请人，剩余授权金应该扣除一半。
1.迟延交付的违约责任
协议两个条款约定，申请人应当于2011年11月30日向被申请人交付本游戏的不删档测试版，被申请人应当在接受申请人交付的不删档测试版本5个月内开展本游戏产品的不删档测试工作。协议的两次约定说明，申请人按时交付游戏产品的不删档测试版本是非常主要、核心的合同义务。
当事人证据证明，申请人于2012年4月28日向被申请人提供了不删档测试版本，相比约定的期限迟延了近5个月。
协议约定，被申请人在接到申请人提供的每个版本后，应在15个工作日内，以书面形式通知申请人验收结果；在未经双方书面认可的前提下，若申请人未于本协议之约定期限内交付本网络游戏公开测试版本予被申请人，如逾期超过一个月，申请人同意每逾期一个月，被申请人可以扣除授权金剩余部分的10%，并依此类推直到剩余授权金扣完为止。
仲裁庭认为，申请人迟延交付不删档测试版本的事实能够得到证实。
2.履约沟通
仲裁庭认为，判断当事人双方履约情况应当首先看合同义务的主体与核心，再顾及次要部分。从当事人双方提供的证据看，申请人提交了游戏产品的相应版本，保障被申请人得以开始游戏产品的商业化运营，并获得了收益。虽然申请人提交不删档测试版本存在迟延的情况，但是其履行了约定的主体、核心义务。
由于当事人双方之间互享权利、互负义务，权利、义务之间有很强的关联、对应及不可割裂的关系，因此，申请人提出的“申请人会根据被申请人的时间安排和游戏修改要求而进行修改”“如果被申请人活动安排推迟，申请人开发版本的时间就相应推迟”的主张，也在一定程度上反映了履约的实际情况。
仲裁庭注意到，申请人迟延交付游戏产品的不删档测试版本近5个月，但是被申请人并未根据约定，向申请人发出书面违约通知，也未限期申请人采取补救措施。
当事人双方提交的证据显示，在约定的交付日期与申请人实际交付日之间，当事人双方就合同的履行，不断沟通、协调，相互配合，相互作出妥协与宽宥，相互容忍对方在履行过程中出现的迟延等情况，并无追究对方违约责任的主张。这是双务合同中权利、义务的对应性和对等性的表现，也是当事人双方为了实现合同的根本目的所作的妥协。
因此，仲裁庭认为，既然申请人已经依约交付了游戏产品的版本，履行了合同的核心义务，被申请人也应当履行其相应的核心义务，即支付授权金。因此，被申请人应当向申请人支付剩余未支付的授权金。
（二）迟延支付授权金的违约金
申请人主张，被申请人应当承担迟延支付第一笔、第二笔、第三笔、第四笔授权金的违约金，每逾期1日，支付应付未付款项的0.1%。
仲裁庭注意到，申请人主张被申请人应当严格按照约定的金额、期限、方式支付授权金，明显存在严于律人、宽以待己的问题。申请人要求被申请人必须严格按照约定的日期履行，否则要按日承担违约滞纳金，但是申请人自己履行义务则不受约定期限的约束，可以根据与对方的沟通，“相应推迟”，且不承担任何不利的后果。因此，申请人的单边利己主张，不应得到支持。
仲裁庭注意到，如果按照申请人的主张计算被申请人应当支付的第三笔、第四笔授权金的违约金，即每逾期1日，支付应付未付款项的0.1%，将导致违约金的数额非常巨大，远远超过未付授权金的30%，有违违约金约定的本意。而且，申请人一方面要求被申请人承担如此巨额违约金；另一方面则罔顾自身迟延提交游戏产品相应版本数个月的事实。按照当事人双方均确认的日期，申请人于2011年12月10日提交的首次封闭测试版本，明显晚于约定的交付日期，本可能依约丧失25%的授权金。
因此，仲裁庭认为，协议所约定的被申请人支付第二笔、第三笔、第四笔授权金的日期，均与申请人提交游戏产品的相应版本存在明确的对应关系。既然申请人主张，向被申请人交付所研发的游戏产品相应版本的时间“都是双方在签订合同时一个估算的时间”，可以通过当事人双方在履行过程中的沟通、协调予以推迟，被申请人支付相应授权金的日期也应视合同履行的实际情况予以调整和推迟。被申请人未按照约定的日期支付第二笔、第三笔、第四笔授权金，是在申请人未能按照约定的日期提交游戏产品的相应版本的前提下发生的，事出有因。
鉴于仲裁庭已经基于案件具体情况免除了申请人迟延交付游戏产品相应版本所应承担的违约责任，保障了申请人能够获得约定的全额的剩余授权金，根据公平合理的原则，仲裁庭认定，被申请人不应承担迟延支付授权金所产生的违约金。
委托设计合同通常约定，委托方享有设计成果的著作权等全部知识产权，有权决定设计交付周期，并验收受托方交付的成果。受托方交付的设计验收合格后，有权获得相应的报酬，委托方无权拒绝或推诿。由于委托设计的成果是品牌策略、市场调研、商品名称、视觉形象设计等知识产品，委托方的验收标准及对交付成果的认可与接受需适应此类产品的特征，不能简单套用有形物的交付，避免削足适履。委托设计合同的争议常常集中在委托设计的范围及交付设计的期限、验收标准、设计费用等方面。
在广告产业，接受客户委托进行相关的标识、文案设计，从而收取相应的费用，是广告厂商典型的经营模式。但是，委托设计合同签订后，客户要求的设计内容及范围还可能经常调整、变更。双方如未能及时修改、补充合同，反馈委托设计的调整、增补内容，很容易就所谓“额外工作”的报酬产生争议。在下述案例（案例7）中，受托方之所以获得关于额外工作成果的付款，是因为能够举证证明双方同意变更合同服务范围，使受托人承担的额外工作进入合同约定的服务费范围。相反，如果受托人所主张的额外工作在合同原来约定的工作范围之内，或者并未由双方确认进入付费范围，则缺乏主张委托方付款的合同依据，其遭受服务费损失的教训比较深刻。
在新能源车品牌服务采购合同争议案（案例7）中，当事人合同约定，采购商有权要求更改服务合同的范围，供应商应完成此变更产生的任何额外工作，报酬按照任务中已商定的原则予以确定；关于报酬支付，除30%预付款外，采购商向供应商支付服务费的条件是采购商确认并验收供应商的交付内容；采购商应及时对供应商交付的服务、可交付成果进行验收或提出修改意见，若采购商对供应商交付的服务、可交付成果有异议，应于服务提供者将其交付后5个工作日内以书面方式提出，否则，视为采购商接受供应商交付的服务、可交付成果。
申请人主张，被申请人违约未支付关于策略类、平面类与合同额外工作类三部分的服务费，而且已经没有能力继续推动其品牌计划，案涉合同的目的显然已经无法实现，与被申请人签订的合同应解除。
申请人举证证明，双方同意变更合同关于服务范围的约定、承担原约定交付内容之外的工作，即将品牌新能源汽车LOGO（徽标或者商标）亮相创意内容补充或增加进入合同约定的服务范围。申请人于2020年7月23日向被申请人提交“线上LOGO亮相KV”成果后，被申请人并未在交付后5个工作日内以书面方式提出任何异议，应视为被申请人接受申请人交付的成果。被申请人接受申请人提交的成果后，应当依约为申请人完成的额外工作、交付的成果支付双方认可的报酬。但是，被申请人却于2020年8月3日告知申请人，单方面取消申请人已经交付的额外工作，故意拒付相应的报酬。
仲裁庭认为，依据合同关于报酬及支付的约定，被申请人是否实际使用申请人交付的工作成果并非向申请人支付服务费的前提条件，被申请人无权单方面否定双方达成的关于额外工作的补充协议，无权拒绝向申请人支付已交付成果的报酬。被申请人拒绝向申请人支付已经提交的“线上LOGO亮相KV”成果服务费，构成违约。申请人还按期交付了全部策略类工作成果和平面类工作中的产品主KV成果。但是，被申请人仅向申请人支付了平面类工作成果30%的价款，其余服务费均未支付，被申请人的违约行为已经致使当事人之间的合同目的无法实现，申请人有权解除合同，并按照约定获得相应的服务费。
在推广项目客户服务协议争议案（案例8）中，申请人主张，该协议未对增加的额外服务费用结算进行明确约定，双方未结算的变更服务费包括：SF5视频分辨率变更及AliOS脚本创意增加2套。
然而，仲裁庭发现，协议关于服务内容的约定本身就包括“基于AliOS功能亮点，进行功能演示片的创意及创作”。申请人所称的“脚本”是创意、创作AliOS功能演示短片的基础与大纲。既然协议明确约定申请人应交付3支AliOS功能演示短片，申请人为了履行上述服务义务，就应当创意、创作相应的3支（而非仅1支）脚本。因此，“脚本创意增加2套”并非“增加的额外服务”，而是“协议”约定范围内申请人应向被申请人提供的服务。申请人虽然曾经在协议签订前发给被申请人“报价单”，但是申请人的单方报价并不能构成对当事人双方均有约束力的合同关系。协议约定当事人之间的合同关系经签字、盖章方才得到正式的确认，并对双方产生约束力。既然被申请人已经向申请人付清协议约定的价款，申请人无法要求被申请人为其获得约定的服务另行支付服务费。
仲裁庭还发现，SF5视频分辨率变更并非协议约定的申请人服务范围，故不属于协议约定的被申请人应支付价款的范围。协议约定，如发生服务范围的变化或申请人无法控制的情形，导致申请人花费了大量额外的服务时间，被申请人同意根据情况审核原商定的价款。被申请人同意“审核”原商定的价款，并非当然受申请人提出的报价的约束。而且，协议约定，当事人对本协议的任何弃权、变更或增补只有经被申请人及申请人签署并于其中明示其修改本协议的意图，才对被申请人及申请人有约束力。上述约定排除了将被申请人实际使用申请人提交的SF5视频分辨率增加成果视为认可支付申请人额外工作费用的可能。由于当事人双方未曾签署任何变更或者增补协议的文件，申请人提供的SF5视频分辨率变更服务并不构成双方约定的服务内容，被申请人除非自愿向申请人支付有关的服务费，否则不负有向申请人付款的义务。
在广告委托设计合同中，受托方提交的阶段性成果及最终设计成果，全部知识产权归委托方（客户）是附条件的，服务费总额一般包括知识产权转让费。客户只有付清服务费才能受让设计成果的全部知识产权，否则擅自在商业活动中使用设计成果可能引发违约及知识产权侵权争议。
在某品牌服务采购合同争议案（案例9）中，双方约定申请人（供应商）为被申请人（采购商）提供关于某品牌策略、品牌全年传播计划、品牌视觉识别系统VI的服务，被申请人向申请人支付相应的报酬。合同约定，若采购商在任务完成后两年内的任何时间向供应商就供应商失职未能按照服务合同提供服务而索赔，供应商应迅速并免费为采购商提供失职调查及纠正错误的方法；如供应商违反前述条款或者迟延交付工作成果或者工作质量不符合行业标准或约定的要求，采购商有权根据实际情况减少或停止向供应商支付报酬，要求供应商返还已支付的报酬，或者终止本合同，要求供应商赔偿采购商因此产生的全部损失。
被申请人主张，申请人并未依约提供完毕全部服务及向被申请人交付约定内容，但未能提供任何证据证明其主张。申请人的证据则足以证明申请人在合同约定的期限内按照被申请人的要求交付了全部工作成果，并且根据被申请人的反馈及双方沟通进行修改、更新、深化，甚至在合同期限届满后继续应被申请人的要求提交VI项目源文件、品牌体系梳理方案、汇报的终版方案以及更新的品牌的方案等内容。申请人还举证证明，被申请人在官网及品牌销售门店广泛使用的标识正是申请人交付的品牌视觉识别系统（VI）中最核心的品牌标识。
仲裁庭认为，申请人所交付的内容虽然未经被申请人正式验收，但已经由被申请人在商业经营中实际使用。依据合同约定，经采购商认可并付款后的阶段性成果和最终设计成果全部知识产权归采购商所有。被申请人既然已经商业性使用申请人交付的设计成果，证明被申请人不仅认可申请人交付的内容，并且承认该内容达到了“付款”的标准。合同还约定，服务费总额包括知识产权转让费。被申请人在拒不向申请人付款的情况下，尚未受让申请人设计成果的全部知识产权，擅自商业性使用申请人知识产权成果构成恶意违约，其行为不能被允许，必须尽快向申请人付款。
在广告设计委托合同争议案（案例10）中，验收受托方交付的工作成果是委托方的重要权利，但如接受受托方的全部交付内容后，拖延、逃避验收以拒绝向受托方付款，则不符合缔约目的，违反信守契约的原则。因此，及时验收受托方提交的工作成果，按约定结算服务费，也是委托方承担的合同义务。
在某产品名称策略项目合同争议案（案例11）中，当事人约定，申请人根据被申请人的业务和品牌需求，为被申请人定义最佳的产品命名策略，为本合同项目目标的重心；申请人应根据本项目的具体要求，完成发展洞察和机会评估、发展策略建议以及完成最终命名策略三个项目阶段的工作任务，并提交相应的工作成果；申请人阶段性输出的成果经被申请人书面或者邮件验收通过，作为本合同的输出工作成果。
申请人主张完成了全部阶段的工作。被申请人主张，并未收到申请人第一阶段、第二阶段的输出成果，申请人并未完成服务合同约定的内容。
仲裁庭认为，被申请人是否收到了申请人提交的第一步骤、第二步骤工作成果，与申请人所提交的成果是否符合合同约定，是不同的问题。合同约定，申请人有义务使其工作成果符合被申请人需求。因此，在申请人完成每一步骤、每一阶段的工作成果的过程中，当事人双方都必须处于密切联系与沟通的状态，不论是申请人了解被申请人的需求，还是被申请人了解掌握申请人的工作状况，都是合同项下不言而喻之事。根据合同约定，如果申请人对其服务内容或实施顺序进行调整，需要在取得被申请人同意的基础上进行。因此，如果申请人连第一步骤、第二步骤都没有完成或者没有适当完成，被申请人就应当要求申请人予以改正，直至满足其需求，而非听任申请人进展到第三步骤却不加以阻止与反对。被申请人直到进入本案仲裁程序，才在答辩书中对于申请人第一步骤、第二步骤的工作成果大加批评，提出长篇的质证意见。仲裁庭认为，被申请人既然在第三步骤开始前不加臧否，自应承担相应的后果，不应反推追究申请人不履行或者不全面、不适当履行第一步骤、第二步骤的责任。
关于第三阶段工作成果，被申请人主张，其已经通过邮件方式向申请人说明其输出成果不符合合同要求，不认可申请人的输出成果，更未进行验收。
仲裁庭认为，申请人所提交的第三步骤工作成果如果不符合被申请人的需求，被申请人有权利要求申请人加以修改，申请人也应当根据被申请人的需求作出修改。合同虽然没有明确约定被申请人对于申请人所提交的工作成果提出反馈意见、修改要求的期限，但是附件一中的“项目时间表”约定申请人履行合同义务的期间在3个月左右。根据常理与诚实信用原则，被申请人要求申请人修改工作成果的权利应当在收到相应工作成果之后的合理期间内善意行使，不应反复或者无限期延长。被申请人在收到申请人提交的第三步骤工作成果15个月之后，方才对申请人提出修改补充的要求，明显超出了合理的期间，有滥用合同权利的嫌疑。
被申请人一再强调，只要申请人的输出成果未经被申请人验收，被申请人就有权拒绝付款。仲裁庭认为，“验收”是指被申请人依约接受申请人提交的工作成果，是决定申请人是否完成全部工作成果、被申请人是否应当支付尾款的关键因素。但是，被申请人是否应当验收，不验收有何种法律后果，应当根据合同约定、合同的性质及当事人双方的权利义务关系加以认定与判断。合同虽然没有明确约定被申请人验收或者接受申请人提交工作成果的义务，但是约定了被申请人全面配合申请人开展工作的义务。正如合同起首部分所约定，当事人双方应当在诚信合作的基础之上“共同信守”合同，不论是申请人履行提交工作成果的义务，还是被申请人行使要求申请人修改工作成果的权利，都应当诚实守信。被申请人在收到申请人提交的工作成果之后，拒不依照合同约定进行验收、出具书面验收文件，长期拖延或者事后反悔，已经违反了合同约定和诚信原则，应承担相应的不利后果。
建筑设计是委托设计合同中比较特殊的类型，其专业性强，设计费较高，一般采用内容完备的专业合同，避免和预防委托方与受托方发生争议。目前，地方政府及大型国有企业聘请国际知名建筑设计机构提供服务的情况越来越普遍。但是，此类委托设计项目的实施受政策影响较大，如在合同履行过程中建筑项目因地方规划调整等原因被改动，甚至搁置，委托方与受托方之间很容易就服务范围、服务费用等发生争议。
下述案例（案例12）就属于此类争议的典型。其中，委托方起初是某集团企业，专门建立了项目公司，共同委托国际建筑设计公司设计某地300多米的地标性建筑。委托方与受托方签订了专业设计服务合同，其后又签署了所谓“开工函”。但在当地出台建筑限高政策导致项目审批出现困难、项目可能搁浅后，委托方急于脱身，拒绝承认与受托方的合同关系，拒绝认可各方约定的服务范围，更拒绝向受托方支付服务费。仲裁庭深入考察了当事人之间的合同关系，查清了委托方与受托方的权利与义务，基于当事人的证据，认定了受托方的服务范围。本案争议解决的难点在于，受托方在合同项下付出的专业设计劳动，在委托方拒绝验收的情况下，只有专业评估机构才能比较准确地估算其市场价值。但是，当事人双方无法协商确定专业评估机构，仲裁庭只能基于公平原则，径行对于受托方所付出的设计劳动应得报酬进行大致估算。本案程序语言为英文，为体现案件全貌，特摘录主要内容如下。
案例12：专业设计服务协议争议案
摘要：本案委托方原本是某集团企业，后专门建立了项目公司，共同委托国际建筑设计公司设计某地300多米的地标性建筑。委托方与受托方签订了专业设计服务合同，其后又签署了所谓“开工函”。但在当地出台建筑限高政策导致项目建设审批出现困难、项目可能搁浅后，委托方急于脱身，拒绝承认已经签订且其受托方已经提供设计服务的合同关系，拒绝认可各方约定的服务范围，更拒绝向受托方支付服务费。仲裁庭深入考察了当事人之间的合同关系，查清了委托方与受托方的权利与义务，基于当事人的证据，认定了受托方的服务范围。本案争议解决的难点在于，受托方在合同项下付出的专业设计劳动，在委托方拒绝验收的情况下，只有专业评估机构才能比较准确地估算其市场价值。但是，当事人双方无法协商确定专业评估机构，仲裁庭只能基于公平原则，径行对于受托方所付出的设计劳动应得报酬进行大致估算。
1.Contractual Relationship between Parties and Application of Law
The Claimant filed for arbitration based on two agreements. The first agreement is the Agreement for Professional Design Services（hereinafter referred to as Service Agreement）signed by the Claimant and the First Respondent. The second agreement is XM International Communication Center-Notice To Proceed（hereinafter referred to as the “Notice to Proceed”）signed by the Claimant and the Second Respondent XM Investment and Development Co.，Ltd. on 3 July 2015. The First Respondent and the Second Respondent collectively referred to as the “two Respondents” or the Respondents，unless specified otherwise.
Respondents contend that the dispute in this case was not a matter of the Service Agreement. The Service Agreement between the Claimant and the First Respondent had been terminated and the Second Respondent was not the contractual Party bound by it. The contractual parties of the Notice to Proceed are the Claimant and the Second Respondent and thus not binding on the First Respondent.
Based on the parties' claims and evidence，the Tribunal discovers the contractual relationship between the Parties.
（1）Service Agreement
The Service Agreement was signed by and between the Claimant and the First Respondent，in which the “owner” refers to the First Respondent，the “consultant” refers to the Claimant，and the “project” refers to the concept planning of the XM sheltered dock area and hotel design projects.
Article U of the Service Agreement states that the Group Company will temporarily sign the agreement on behalf of Party A and advance the agreed amount of the contract because the project company has not yet been established； the other party's invoice shall be addressed to “LN Group Company（XM Project）”. “After the project company has been established，the Group Company transferred the advance payment to the project company，and the relevant costs were borne by the project company itself. At the same time，the other party's invoice shall be addressed to the project company to settle the outstanding balance.”
The above text is quite clear that the “Group Company” refers to the First Respondent，“Project Company” refers to the Second Respondent that was established for the agreed “project”，and “the other party” refers to the Claimant. Then who is “Party A” in this Article？ When the Project Company（the Second Respondent）had not yet been established，the Group Company（the First Respondent）will “tentatively” sign the agreement on behalf of “Party A” and “advance the payment” of the contract. After the establishment of the Project Company（the Second Respondent），the cost shall be borne by the Project Company（the Second Respondent）itself.
Therefore，it is clearly the Second Respondent that was “Party A” to be established for the commissioned design project，so the First Respondent signed the contract and “tentatively” “represented” Party A to sign the contract and “advance” the contractual agreed amount. The Respondents should not turn a blind eye to such a clear contractual agreement and made the untruthful statement that the Second Respondent is neither the contractual party nor bound by the Service Agreement.
According to the Service Agreement，the core contractual obligation borne by “Party A” is to pay the fees to the Claimant. The Service Agreement clearly stipulates that，after the establishment of the Second Respondent，the Claimant should directly issue the invoice and settle the outstanding payment with the Second Respondent，which proves that the First Respondent's signing of the Service Agreement and advanced payment of the contractual agreement for Party A are only temporary arrangements. The Parties clearly agreed on the time and method for the Second Respondent to formally “enter” into the contractual relationship and assume the contractual obligations.
Both the Claimant and the two Respondents acknowledged that the Second Respondent actually participated in the performance of the Service Agreement. The Claimant stated that，“from 2 August 2012，the obligations under the original contract regarding payment to the Claimant shall be borne by the Second Respondent.” The two Respondents stated that “XM Company paid the Claimant the design fee of 5.5125 million yuan in the 2011 ‘Professional Design Service Agreement’”.
The Second Respondent's actual payment to the Claimant in accordance with the Service Agreement confirmed that it was indeed the contractual Party of the Service Agreement.
In short，both the mutual agreement and actual performance prove the contractual status of the Second Respondent under the Service Agreement. The Service Agreement is binding to both the Claimant and the two Respondents.
（2）“Notice to Proceed”
The two Respondents argued that the Notice to Proceed is not a continuation or supplement of the 2011 Service Agreement because the parties did not reach agreement upon it.
The Tribunal notes that the Notice to Proceed was sealed by the Claimant and the Second Respondent，whose corresponding name was “LN Group Company XM Investment and Development Co.，Ltd.”. The Notice to Proceed begins with，“The following are the agreed contents of both parties and the Notice to Proceed we understand”，in which “both parties” refers to the Claimant and “LN Group Company XM Investment and Development Co.，Ltd” that combines the names of the two Respondents. Moreover，on the Notice to Proceed，the person who signed on behalf of the Respondents was “××”.
The Notice to Proceed is signed by “both parties” and its content contains what both parties have agreed upon. Therefore，Both the format and substance can prove that the Notice to Proceed is a valid agreement. The Chinese text of the Notice to Proceed consistently refers to the two Respondents as “your party”，while the corresponding English term is “LN”. The interchangeable expressions of “You” and “LN” also confirmed that the Notice to Proceed was an agreement reached between the Claimant as one party and the two Respondents as the other，instead only between the Claimant and the Second Respondent.
Article D of the Service Agreement stipulated that，there is only one person who is authorized to give permission and make decision on behalf of the Owner. The representative authorized by the Owner is A. The Respondents also emphasized in the cross-examination opinion that “A” is the sole representative of the Owner. The person who signed the Notice to Proceed on behalf of the Respondents was “A”，who represents the Owner（the First Respondent）under the Service Agreement. Although the Notice to Proceed is only sealed by the Second Respondent，A can undoubtedly represent both the Second Respondent which sealed on the Notice to Proceed and the Owner（the First Respondent）which signed and sealed in the Service Agreement. Moreover，both the content and the signing section of the Notice to Proceed explicitly mention the enterprise name of the First Respondent and link it with the name of the Second Respondent，which proves that the Notice to Proceed，the same as the Service Agreement，is an agreement reached between the Claimant and the two Respondents. The Respondents' repudiation that the Notice to Proceed is not binding to LN Company is self- contradictory and untenable.
（3）Parties' Agreement
According to Article 3 of the Notice to Proceed，the Claimant agreed with “Your party”（Respondents）： As of 31 August 2015，if the project restarts and entrusts us to design，you will revise this project contract—Professional Design Service Agreement，signed in September 2011； as of 31 August 2015，if the project has not been restarted or our company has not been commissioned to carry out the design，you will pay the service fee of Article 2，and the service fee of the 346-meter tower program of this project（the cost is subject to negotiation）.
The Tribunal finds that the agreement reached by both parties can be divided into two situations，namely：（a）as of 31 August 2015，if the project is restarted and the Claimant is entrusted with the design，both parties will revise the Service Agreement； or（b）as of 31 August 2015，if the project is not restarted or the Claimant is not entrusted to design，the agreement of the Notice to Proceed will be implemented.
The Tribunal notes that the Notice to Proceed explicitly mentions the name，date of signing and agreed content of the Service Agreement and explicitly stipulates the arrangements on the subsequent performance of the project provided in the Service Agreement.
Both the Claimant and the two Respondents acknowledged that the agreed situation（a）in the Notice to Proceed did not occur. The agreement of the situation（b）is still valid and binding to the Claimant and the two Respondents.
Article R of the Service Agreement stipulates that if this agreement is amended，it shall be written by both parties and signed and confirmed by both parties in writing.The Notice to Proceed，therefore，is the written agreement signed and confirmed by the parties to amend the Service Agreement.
The Tribunal notes that Article E，paragraph 1 of the Service Agreement stipulates that if the services required by the Owner or the project exceed the scope of work（additional services）described in Annex B，the consultant（the Claimant）shall notify the Owner and obtain their permission before providing additional services.
The Tribunal notes that，the Notice to Proceed explicitly stipulated that： “You”（the two Respondents）authorized the Claimant to make corresponding mass adjustments on the tower and deliver the following results on 8 July 2015. After this letter is sealed by “You”（the two Respondents），the Claimant was authorized to carry out the above services.
The Tribunal finds that，the scope of services agreed in the Notice to Proceed complies with the requirements stipulated in Article E of the Service Agreement，and the Claimant obtains the permission from the two Respondents for suppling additional design services. The Notice to Proceed is a supplementary agreement reached between the Claimant and the two Respondents on the top of the Service Agreement and is binding to the two Respondents. The agreed terms of the Service Agreement shall continue to apply to the contractual relationship between both parties unless explicitly modified or excluded by the Notice to Proceed.
According to Article T of the Service Agreement，the disputes related to this agreement are governed by the Chinese Contract Law.
2. Claim for Payment of Service Fee
The Claimant claimed that the Respondent did not pay the design fee of the Claimant from 2013 to 2015.
The Respondents claimed that the design fee requested by the Claimant lacked basis. The Service Agreement had been terminated，and the Notice to Proceed could not be regarded as a commission to the Claimant in January 2013. The Claimant did not provide the results that met basic professional requirements. The design is worthless to the two Respondents.The Respondents does not need to pay the project design fee to the Claimant due to force majeure，and the Claimant should bear the risk on its own. The design fee required by the Claimant is too high and unfair.
The Tribunal examines the Parties' claims and evidence carefully and makes the discoveries.
（1）Has the Claimant's service been authorized by the Respondents？
The Notice to Proceed stipulates that，as of 31 August 2015，if the project has not been restarted or the Claimant has not been commissioned to design，“You”（the Respondents）will pay the service fee in Article 2 and the service fee for the 346-meter tower plan of this project（cost to be negotiated）.
The Tribunal notes that the Respondent had paid the Claimant a service fee of RMB 280,000 yuan as stipulated in Article 2 of the Notice to Proceed，but refused to recognize the “service fee for the 346-meter tower plan of this project” as claimed by the Claimant.
Tenability of the Claimant's claim for the design service fee depends on whether the Claimant has obtained the authorization from the Respondents. The Notice to Proceed signed by the parties on 3 July 2015 explicitly stated that this letter，after being sealed by “You”（the Respondents），will authorize our company（the Claimant）to carry out the above services. The Respondent's signature and stamp on the Notice to Proceed is sufficient to prove that it authorized the Claimant to carry out the related design services.
According to the Notice to Proceed，the Claimant's services are divided into two parts，corresponding to the two parts of fees. The Respondents do not object to the first part of the Claimant's service and its corresponding service fee（as agreed in Article 2 RMB 280,000 yuan）and have paid it off. It is inconsistent for the Respondents to deny that they have authorized the Claimant to provide the second part of the service and the corresponding service fee. The Tribunal therefore does not support the Respondents' contention on unauthorized service.
Among the evidence submitted by the Respondents，there was an email from the Claimant to the Respondents' “only authorized representative” A on 21 February 2013. The evidence appeared in the Respondent's evidence 2 and evidence 7（notarized certificate）. The Respondents not only submitted this evidence twice，but also cited the content of the evidence，which was sufficient to prove that the Respondents recognized the authenticity of the content recorded in this evidence.
The Tribunal notes that the email stated that “in January this year，you（A）verbally confirmed [typo as “que ren”—the tribunal's note] the beginning of the new project”，which “about the new 346-meter tower project”.
The Tribunal finds that since A，the sole authorized representative of the Respondents，authorized the Claimant to carry out the services of the new tower project in February 2013 by “verbal approval”，the Respondents' contention that “the Claimant is engaged in the design work of the disputed project by itself” breached the promise and violated the principle of honesty and credibility.
The Notice to Proceed stipulates that，as of 31 August 2015，if the project has not been restarted or the Claimant has not been entrusted with the design，“You will pay the service fee as in Article 2 and the service fee of the 346-meter tower plan（cost to be negotiated）”. The above agreement is consistent with the previous consensus reached between the parties on the new tower project. Once the condition is met that “the project has not been restarted or the Claimant has not been commissioned to design” until 31 August 2015，the Respondents shall pay for the correspondent services completed by the Claimant.
In short，the Tribunal holds that the Claimant has contractual basis for claiming for the relevant design service fee for the 346-meter tower plan.
（2）Do the Respondents have any reason to refuse to pay the service fee of the Claimant？
The Respondents claimed that the XM Municipal Government's regulations on building's height limits amounted to force majeure，and the Respondents' payment obligation should be waived.
Force majeure applies to the event that cannot be foreseen by the parties at the time when the contract was concluded. Article C of the Service Agreement explicitly stipulates that the Owner（the Respondents）shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary government approval and registration procedures required to sign and perform this agreement. Therefore，when the contract was concluded，both parties not only anticipated the relevant results of the government's approval，but also agreed that the Respondents should assume the obligation to obtain the approval. The Respondents' contractual obligations should not be deemed as force majeure event.
The Respondents also stated that the project involved could not obtain Planning Permission and therefore was worthless to the Respondents.
However，the Parties' value expectation has been reflected in the signed agreement. The contract must be honored in performance，and the Respondents cannot use the excuse of “worthlessness” to avoid performing its contractual obligations.
The Respondents insisted that the Claimant knew that the disputed project involved was suspended due to the government's height limit policy，and “the Claimant knew that the design fee might not be obtained because the government did not approve it and should bear its own risk”.
The Tribunal finds that，it was the obligation of the Respondents to obtain the government approval in accordance with the Service Agreement. The Claimant sent the design documents to the Respondents on 8 July 2015，not only with the explicit authorization contained in the Notice to Proceed，but replied on the trust on the Respondents' ability to fulfil its contractual obligations by obtaining the relevant approval. The Claimant had never exposed itself to any self-inflicted risks.
In conclusion，the Respondents have no valid reason for the Respondents to refuse to pay the Claimant's service fee. Even if the Parties' contractual relationship has been terminated，the Respondents are still obliged to settle the outstanding design fees with the Claimant according to the Chinese Contract Law.
（3）How to determine the Claimant's service fee？
The Tribunal notes that the Notice to Proceed agreed that as of 31 August 2015，if the project was not restarted or the Claimant was not commissioned to design，the Respondents would pay the service fee according to Article 2 and the service fee for the 346-meter tower plan of this project（cost to be negotiated）.
Although the Claimant has the contractual basis for the service fee，the Respondents also acknowledges that “the Claimant sent the design documents to the Respondents on 8 July 2015”，the “service fee for the 346-meter tower plan”is yet to be explicitly agreed by the parties. What's agreed is that the Parties should further negotiate with respect to the amount or calculation method. Unfortunately，the agreement on further negotiations between the Parties did not materialize despite many discussions.
The Tribunal notes that the Claimant submitted a LN Project-Summary Fee Exhibit and an Expense Detail as evidence of the claim for the service fee. The Respondents argued that the Claimant did not submit in timely manner the result that meets the basic professional requirements and the Claimant's claim for design fees are completely arbitrarily without any basis.
Since the arguments of the Parties are diametrically opposite to each other，it makes it extremely difficult for the Tribunal to resolve the disputes between the Parties. However，the Tribunal has gone to great lengths to use various methods to resolve the disputes.
（a）Agreement in the Contract
According to the Notice to Proceed，the service fee claimed by the Claimant shall be determined by the Parties through negotiation. However，the evidence and claims related to the service fee submitted by the Claimant were not recognized by the Respondents. The Respondents also claimed that the service fee claimed by the Claimant was obviously too high and unfair.
The Tribunal believes that the Parties' consensus of the service fee amount（or calculation method）through negotiation be the best solution in the interests of both parties. For this reason，during the hearing，the Tribunal had suspended the trial and patiently spent a lot of precious time to mediate between the parties. It was hoped that the Parties can reach the settlement agreement and form a mediated settlement scheme satisfactory to both parties. Regrettably，the propositions of the parties were too far apart to mediate. After the hearing，the Tribunal still gave the Parties sufficient time to communicate and negotiate，hoping that the two sides could settle the dispute in a consensus manner. However，both Parties ignored the utmost patience and efforts of the Tribunal，and the mediation finally ended up in vain.
（b）Tribunal-recommended professional appraisal
In the absence of settlement，the Tribunal still strives to resolve the disputes between the Parties as fair and reasonable as possible.
The Tribunal notes that the Claimant submits the LN Project-Summary Fee Exhibit and Expense Detail to show the working hours，travel expenses，car rental fees，meals fees，etc. However，the evidence was produced unilaterally by the Claimant，and is not recognized by the Respondent.
The Tribunal finds that the various types of working hours and expenses shown in the Claimant's evidence required professional knowledge and experience to assess their relevance and necessity. Moreover，the Parties' disputes involve complex and professional technical issues（such as the “adjustment of the tower's volume” stipulated in the Notice to Proceed or whether the design results meet the requirements，etc.）. Therefore，the service fee requested by the Claimant is suitable to be evaluated by the professional，technical，and neutral third-party agencies，so that the Tribunal can obtain more objective and neutral information outside of the sharply opposing parties as the basis for judgment.
To this end，the Tribunal specifically issued an “inquiry letter”，and eagerly hoped that the Parties could coordinate with each other，agree on the professional appraisal，and jointly designate the relevant appraisal agency，or agree to let the Tribunal to designate one，or agree upon the standards，procedures，and scope of the designation.
However，the Tribunal tried in vain，the Parties' responses to the “inquiry letter” were far from any agreement and could not be coordinated. In lack of consensus and support from the Parties，even if the appraisal were held，the results would not be recognized by both Parties. Therefore，professional appraisal is no longer a viable option.
（c）Discretion of the Tribunal
Since the parties can neither negotiate according to the contract nor agree to conduct the third-party appraisal，the Tribunal has no other choice but to determine the amount of the service fee based on the all circumstances of the case. The Tribunal's such decision is entirely the result of the actions of both Parties throughout the whole arbitration process. The Parties should face the consequences of their own choice.
The Notice to Proceed stipulates that You（the Respondents）authorize our company（the Claimant）to adjust the corresponding tower mass. From the textual expression，the “mass adjustment” should be different from the complete overhaul of the design service under the Service Agreement. Attachment B of the Service Agreement stipulates the scope of the Claimant's basic services. Attachment C stipulates the Claimant's service progress has five stages. According to the above agreement，the fifth stage of the Claimant's work is the “preliminary design of the exterior wall”，and the documents should be submitted are： the plan of the building's monomer exterior wall，the profile view of the building's monomer exterior wall，the vertical view of the building's monomer exterior wall，architectural renderings，sketch map of the detailed nodes of the building's exterior walls，etc. The Tribunal notes from the Notice to Proceed that the current round of adjustments did not involve building planes，fronts，elevations，and details. Therefore，the design product submitted by the Claimant in accordance with the Notice to Proceed at least does not include stage 5 as agreed in Annex C of the Service Agreement. Therefore，compared with the Service Agreement，the scope and extent of the services provided by the Claimant in accordance with the Notice to Proceed have been reduced.
Attachment C of the Service Agreement also stipulates that the starting time of（the Claimant completing）each stage of work shall be subject to the Owner's notice. Annex B stipulates that the Claimant's concept planning design and hotel intention design shall be confirmed and approved by the Owner，only then did the design work in the subsequent stages may proceed step by step. It is，therefore，impossible for the Claimant to complete all the design work at one time without the confirmation and approval of the Respondents. Therefore，the work submitted by the Claimant to the Respondents in accordance with the Notice to Proceed must not be the completed design results. If the service fee is paid according to the standards and amounts originally agreed in the Service Agreement，it will cause the unfair results.
Article F of the Service Agreement stipulates that，the services under this agreement shall be provided only for the benefit in this project of the Owner and shall not be used for other purposes. Therefore，the service provided by the Claimant to the Respondents should meet the such contractual purpose and the Claimant's service fee should not be entirely decided according to its unilaterally claims.
Based on comprehensive consideration of all the circumstances of the case，the Tribunal rules that the amount of the service fee in its discretion.