CNY 124,299 Mechanical Parts Payment and Counterclaim Dismissed
In this case, the court resolved a dispute between a parts supplier and a buyer over unpaid mechanical parts. The plaintiff, Mr. Zhao, sued the defendant, Mr. Bao, for payment of 124,299 yuan for parts delivered. Mr. Bao responded with a counterclaim, alleging that the parts were defective and caused him significant losses, including a 130,000 yuan compensation payment to his customer. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that Mr. Bao had made a partial payment of 60,000 yuan, reducing the outstanding debt to 64,299 yuan. The court dismissed the counterclaim due to insufficient proof of product defects.
Mr. Zhao operated a machinery parts factory in Eastern China City. He and Mr. Bao had a long-standing business relationship where Mr. Bao purchased mechanical parts for resale. By December 10, 2010, Mr. Bao owed 124,299 yuan according to Mr. Zhao’s records. Mr. Bao claimed he had paid 60,000 yuan in cash to a factory employee named Mr. Sun on September 10, 2010, leaving a balance of only 64,299 yuan. Mr. Bao further asserted that the parts supplied by Mr. Zhao suffered from serious quality issues, specifically that casting shell balling led to product breakage. He claimed that his customer, a brake company in Central China City, demanded 130,000 yuan in compensation, returned 568 parts, and terminated their business relationship, causing him additional shipping costs and lost profits.
During the hearing, both parties presented documentary evidence. Mr. Zhao submitted delivery notes, an inventory summary, and a lawyer’s letter demanding payment. Mr. Bao produced a receipt showing a cash payment to Mr. Sun, along with two business cards indicating Mr. Sun held a managerial role at the factory. For the counterclaim, Mr. Bao provided letters and notices from his customer, a quality report, photographs of broken parts, and shipping records. Mr. Zhao challenged the authenticity of these documents, noting that many were copies and that the customer had a direct interest in the outcome. The court examined each piece of evidence carefully.
The court found that Mr. Bao had indeed paid 60,000 yuan to Mr. Sun on September 10, 2010. Mr. Zhao did not dispute that Mr. Sun was authorized to receive payments, though he claimed Mr. Sun never received the money. On that basis, the court accepted the payment as valid, reducing the debt to 64,299 yuan. Regarding the counterclaim, the court held that Mr. Bao failed to provide sufficient evidence that the alleged defective parts were manufactured by Mr. Zhao. The customer’s quality report came from its own inspection department, which lacked independent testing qualifications. Moreover, the photographs and shipping records did not link the broken parts to Mr. Zhao’s products. The court also noted that Mr. Bao continued to order parts after the alleged quality incident, which contradicted his claim.
According to relevant law, a valid sales contract exists between the parties, and the buyer must pay for goods received. On the counterclaim, the burden of proof rested with Mr. Bao to show that the goods were defective and caused his losses. The evidence did not meet that standard. The court further reasoned that claimed lost profits were too speculative to be recoverable. The court applied the principle that a party alleging product defects must present clear, credible evidence, especially when the claimed losses are substantial. Without reliable proof linking the alleged defects to Mr. Zhao’s products, the counterclaim could not succeed.
The court ruled that Mr. Bao must pay Mr. Zhao 64,299 yuan within a set period. All counterclaim demands, including 130,000 yuan in compensation, 10,780 yuan for shipping and packaging, and 250,000 yuan in lost profits, as well as the request to return 2,000 parts, were dismissed. This case highlights the importance of maintaining clear payment records and obtaining independent quality certifications when alleging product defects. Parties in commercial disputes should ensure that evidence is properly documented and authenticated to support their claims.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.