Dispute Over CNY 177 for Peach Sale Ends in Court Order
The court ruled in favor of a farmer who sold peaches worth CNY 177 to a local buyer but never received payment. The buyer had promised to pay after the harvest season but failed to do so despite repeated requests. The judgment ordered the buyer to settle the debt within three days, along with interest for late payment. The case highlights how even small commercial disputes can be resolved through formal legal channels.
Mr. Li, a farmer from a village in Central China City, responded to a public announcement made by Mr. Wang over the village loudspeaker during the 2011 peach harvest. Mr. Wang had invited local villagers to bring their fresh peaches to him for purchase. On June 27, 2011, Mr. Li delivered 118 jin of peaches to Mr. Wang at an agreed price of CNY 1.5 per jin, totaling CNY 177. That same day, Mr. Wang issued a handwritten receipt acknowledging the transaction. Despite multiple follow-ups, Mr. Wang never paid the amount owed.
When the case came to court in December 2012, Mr. Li submitted the original receipt as evidence. He also provided a certificate from the village committee stating that Mr. Wang had indeed used the village broadcast system to call for peach deliveries. The defendant, Mr. Wang, did not attend the hearing and submitted no defense or counter-evidence. The court examined the documents and, based on the coherence of the evidence and the plaintiff’s sworn testimony, accepted both pieces of evidence as credible.
The court found that the transaction created a valid sales contract between the parties. By delivering the peaches and accepting the receipt, both sides had entered into a mutually binding agreement. Mr. Wang’s failure to pay the agreed sum constituted a breach of that contract. The court concluded that Mr. Li’s claim was legally sound and warranted enforcement. It ordered Mr. Wang to pay the principal amount of CNY 177 within three days of the judgment taking effect.
Under the relevant provisions of the Contract Law, a person who fails to perform a contractual obligation must bear liability for breach. The court cited Articles 6, 8, 60, and 159, which emphasize good faith, binding force of agreements, proper performance, and the buyer’s duty to pay the price. The judgment also noted that any delay in payment would result in double interest on the overdue amount, as required by civil procedure rules. The court further ordered Mr. Wang to bear the litigation costs of CNY 25.
This ruling underscores that informal transactions, even those based on a local broadcast and a simple handwritten receipt, are enforceable under Chinese contract law. Small claims like this one can be efficiently handled by the courts, providing a reliable remedy for rural vendors. The case also serves as a reminder that buyers who solicit goods from a community must honor their payment obligations, or face legal consequences including additional interest and costs.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.