Court Orders Furniture Company to Pay CNY 48,917 for Vegetable Supplies

In this case, a local furniture company was ordered by the court to pay CNY 48,917.40 for unpaid vegetable supplies. The plaintiff, Mr. Lu, had provided fresh vegetables and meat to the company’s canteen over an extended period. When the company stopped production and failed to settle the outstanding balance, Mr. Lu filed a lawsuit to recover the debt. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, emphasizing the legal obligation to pay for goods received.

The dispute arose from a long-standing business relationship. Mr. Lu delivered vegetables, meat, and other food items daily to the defendant company’s canteen in Eastern China City. Each delivery was verified and signed off by the company’s office staff responsible for general affairs. By December 23, 2011, the company had accumulated an unpaid balance of CNY 48,917.40. The company subsequently ceased operations, leaving Mr. Lu with no payment. He then initiated legal proceedings on February 6, 2012, seeking payment of the outstanding amount plus litigation costs.

At the hearing, Mr. Lu appeared in person and presented evidence to support his claim. The evidence included copies of his identification and the defendant’s business registration to establish the parties’ legal standing. The key piece of evidence was a signed settlement statement confirming the exact amount owed. The defendant company, although properly served with notice, did not appear in court. As a result, the court treated the company as having waived its right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s evidence. The court therefore accepted all submitted documents as credible and accurate.

The court found that the facts matched Mr. Lu’s account. According to relevant law, where one party has delivered goods but the other party has not paid the agreed price, the seller has the right to demand payment. The defendant’s failure to honor the debt constituted a breach of contract. The court further noted that the defendant’s absence did not prevent the court from issuing a judgment based on the evidence before it. Consequently, the court ordered the furniture company to pay the full amount of CNY 48,917.40 within three days of the judgment taking effect.

The legal basis for the decision lay in Article 107 of the Contract Law, which provides that a party that fails to perform its contractual obligations must bear liability for breach. The court also cited Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law, which allows judgment by default when a defendant fails to appear after proper service. Additionally, the court warned that if the defendant delayed payment beyond the specified period, it would be liable for double the interest on the overdue amount under Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law. The litigation costs of CNY 1,023 were also imposed on the defendant.

This case serves as a reminder that suppliers should maintain clear delivery records and signed acknowledgments of debt. Even when a defendant does not participate in the proceedings, a court can still enter a binding judgment based on credible documentary evidence. Companies that suspend operations remain responsible for their outstanding obligations. The ruling reinforces the principle that contractual debts must be honored, and that non-payment can lead to enforceable court orders with additional financial penalties for delay.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.