Peach Sale Dispute Results in Judgment for CNY 1,553.60
A civil dispute over unpaid peach deliveries has been resolved in a local court, with the defendant ordered to pay a total of CNY 1,553.60 to the plaintiff. The case involved a simple purchase agreement between two individuals in a rural village, where the plaintiff sold fresh peaches to the defendant during the harvest season. The court found that the defendant had failed to make payment despite repeated requests, leading to the lawsuit. The judgment was issued after a hearing where the defendant did not appear.
The plaintiff, Mr. Chen, is a farmer from a village in Central China City. In 2011, after the peach harvest, the defendant, Mr. Zhang, used the village broadcast system to call on residents to deliver their peaches to him for purchase. Mr. Chen delivered peaches on several occasions, and each time Mr. Zhang issued a handwritten receipt. In total, six receipts were given, representing a combined amount of CNY 1,553.60. Mr. Chen repeatedly asked for payment, but Mr. Zhang never paid. Mr. Chen then filed a lawsuit seeking immediate repayment of the peach debt. Mr. Zhang did not attend the court proceedings or submit any written defense.
During the hearing, Mr. Chen presented two types of evidence. First, he submitted the six original receipts signed by Mr. Zhang, each documenting the quantity of peaches delivered and the corresponding amount owed. Second, he provided a certificate from the village committee confirming that Mr. Zhang had indeed used the village broadcast system during the peach season to invite villagers to deliver their peaches to him. The court reviewed these documents. The defendant did not offer any evidence to challenge the claims. The court noted that the receipts and the village certificate corroborated each other and established the factual basis of the plaintiff’s case.
The court found that the relationship between the parties was a valid sales contract. By delivering peaches to the defendant and receiving receipts, the plaintiff had performed his part of the agreement. The defendant, however, failed to pay the agreed price. The court held that this failure constituted a breach of contract. According to relevant law, parties to a contract must act in good faith, perform their obligations, and pay for goods received. The court determined that the defendant’s delay in payment was unjustified and that the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount of CNY 1,553.60.
The legal basis for the decision rested on several provisions of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China. The court cited principles of good faith, the binding nature of lawful contracts, the duty to fully perform contractual obligations, and the buyer’s obligation to pay the purchase price for delivered goods. The court also applied the Civil Procedure Law regarding the consequences of failing to pay on time, including additional interest for delayed payment. The evidence showed a straightforward transaction: the plaintiff delivered goods, the defendant acknowledged receipt in writing, and no payment followed. The court concluded that the defendant’s absence did not weaken the plaintiff’s well-documented claim.
This case illustrates how even small, informal agricultural sales can be enforced through the courts when proper documentation exists. The receipts served as key written evidence of the transaction and the debt. The village committee certificate further supported the plaintiff’s version of events. The judgment reaffirms that oral and broadcast announcements creating expectations of purchase do not relieve a buyer from the duty to pay. For farmers and small traders, keeping written records of deliveries and payments remains a practical safeguard. The court ordered payment within three days of the judgment, plus legal costs of CNY 25 to be borne by the defendant.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.