Concrete Supply Dispute Results in CNY 159,895 Judgment
A civil dispute over a concrete supply contract has concluded with a court ordering the defendant to pay outstanding货款 of CNY 159,895 plus late payment penalties. The case, heard in an Eastern China City court, involved a building materials supplier and a construction company. The court granted the plaintiff’s request for an asset freeze during proceedings and later issued a judgment after the defendant failed to appear at trial.
The plaintiff, Mingfeng Building Materials Co., entered into a concrete supply contract with the defendant, Qiangsheng Construction Co., on September 3, 2008. The contract stipulated that the defendant would purchase various grades of concrete from September 2008 through January 2009, with a total price of CNY 2,000,000. The agreement also set forth payment terms and penalties for late payment. According to the plaintiff, it supplied concrete worth CNY 1,409,895 to the defendant based on the defendant’s orders. By July 25, 2009, the defendant owed CNY 659,895. After partial payments, a balance of CNY 159,895 remained unpaid, prompting the lawsuit filed on January 12, 2012.
During the court hearing, the plaintiff presented several pieces of evidence to support its claims. These included the original concrete supply contract, seven delivery receipts, a debt confirmation letter, a payment agreement dated January 25, 2010, and two receipts and bank transfer records. The defendant, Qiangsheng Construction Co., did not file a written defense or attend the hearing despite being properly served. The court reviewed the evidence and found it authentic, lawful, and relevant. The documents corroborated each other and established the facts as alleged by the plaintiff.
The court held that a valid and legally binding sales relationship existed between the parties. The defendant was obligated to pay for the concrete it received in accordance with the contract terms. Since the defendant failed to pay the remaining balance of CNY 159,895, it was also required to pay liquidated damages for late payment. The court accepted the plaintiff’s calculation of damages at 0.1% per day on the outstanding amount, starting from August 1, 2009, until the date of payment specified in the judgment.
According to relevant law, the court applied provisions of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China. Specifically, Article 44 confirms that a contract becomes effective upon execution, and Article 60 requires parties to fully perform their obligations. Article 107 imposes liability for breach of contract, including continued performance or compensation for losses. Article 159 mandates that a buyer pay the agreed price. Since the defendant did not appear, the court proceeded under the Civil Procedure Law, which permits a default judgment when a defendant fails to attend without proper justification.
This case serves as a straightforward example of a commercial contract dispute where the buyer failed to fulfill payment obligations. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that timely payment is required under sales contracts and that late payment triggers agreed-upon penalties. The judgment also demonstrates the court’s willingness to grant default judgments when defendants choose not to participate. Parties entering into supply agreements should ensure clear terms on payment and penalties to avoid similar disputes. The defendant was also ordered to bear the court costs and preservation fees.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.