Lawyer Yu Wenqiang represented Changzhou Yuan Electrical Instrument Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractee") against Changzhou Taifeng Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor") in a construction contract dispute, where the Contractor required the Contractee to pay 1,427,852 yuan for the extra-budgetary payment in the first trial, and the court of first trial ruled that the Contractee should pay the Contractor 707,905.42 yuan. Later, Lawyer Yu Wenqiang represented the Contractee in the second trial, revoked the judgment of the first trial and rejected all claims of the Contractor. Afterward, the Contractor filed a retrial with the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court who rejected the Contractor’s application.

The core legal argument for this case adopted by the court of the second trial and retrial was that--firstly, the construction contract concluded by the litigants for the same project was substantively inconsistent with the contract content filed, and as the project was not subject to compulsory competitive tendering and the litigant did not voluntarily invite tenders, settlement of payment should be based on the contract actually performed by both parties; secondly, both parties have signed the contract to construct in accordance with drawings at an all-inclusive fee, and agreed that any change or addition to the design required signing separate certificates as proof of settlement, otherwise additional project funds should not be applicable in the absence of certificates or sufficient evidence to prove that both parties have agreed on the addition.