321,415 Yuan Stone Supply Debt: University Must Pay After Nine-Year Dispute Over Verbal Purchase Agreement

A stone supplier who provided marble and granite worth over 650,000 yuan for a university construction project obtained a judgment for the unpaid 321,415 yuan balance plus 100,000 yuan in interest, after the court ruled that a verbal supply agreement backed by a written commitment from the university’s infrastructure director created a binding purchase contract.

In June 2003, the supplier was introduced to a university’s new campus construction project through a friend. The university’s infrastructure director personally wrote a commitment letter promising that the university would pay the supplier directly for all stone materials delivered to the project sites. Concerned about collecting payment from the general contractor, the supplier had insisted on this arrangement before beginning deliveries.

Over the following months, the supplier delivered stone materials to six different campus building sites including an arts building, anatomy building, two phases of a laboratory complex, a department office building, and a pedestrian walkway. The total value of stone delivered reached 651,415 yuan. The university made three partial payments totaling approximately 330,000 yuan, leaving 321,415 yuan unpaid.

The university defended by arguing no contract existed with the supplier, claiming the construction contractor should have purchased all materials. However, the court found that the director’s written commitment, combined with the university’s actual payments to the supplier and its deduction of stone costs from amounts owed to the general contractor, established a de facto purchase contract between the university and the supplier. The general contractor was dismissed from liability as it served only as a material acceptor, not a purchaser.

The court rejected the university’s statute of limitations defense, finding that the supplier had continuously pursued payment through personal visits and a designated representative who contacted successive university officials over the years, each time receiving promises of resolution. These repeated demands and acknowledgments continuously reset the two-year limitation period. The last demand occurred in November 2011, well within the statutory period before the lawsuit was filed.