Oil Company vs. Gas Station: Consumer & Daily Court Ruling on Unpaid Fuel Deliveries

A Chinese oil company won a personal injury claim-style victory in a product liability dispute after a gas station tried to blame its former manager for unpaid fuel deliveries, with the court ruling that the station must pay over 178,000 yuan in outstanding oil payments. The case, heard by a court in a prefecture-level city, centered on a series of fuel sales between the plaintiff oil company and the defendant gas station service company in June 2011.

The plaintiff oil company alleged that it had delivered 20 tons of 93# gasoline and 8 tons of 0# diesel fuel to the defendant gas station on June 3 and June 16, 2011, totaling 259,320 yuan. The defendant made a partial payment of 47,450 yuan on July 5, and later returned some oil worth 33,330 yuan. Despite repeated demands, the defendant still owed 178,540 yuan. The plaintiff sought payment of this amount plus 3,074 yuan in overdue interest. The defendant argued that the transactions were the personal actions of its former station manager, Liao Xiaomao, conducted without the company’s knowledge, and thus the manager should be personally liable. The plaintiff provided delivery receipts, an account statement signed by Liao confirming the debt of 211,870 yuan, and a lawyer’s letter demanding payment. The defendant submitted a statement from Liao claiming the debt was personal. The court found that the plaintiff’s evidence was credible: all fuel was delivered to the defendant’s storage tanks and signed for by station employees, and the account reconciliation was signed by the station manager. The court rejected the defendant’s argument, noting that the manager was acting within the scope of his employment and the fuel went into the company’s inventory.

The court ruled that the defendant gas station company must pay the remaining 178,540 yuan in fuel costs to the plaintiff oil company within ten days of the judgment taking effect. However, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for overdue interest because the parties had not agreed on a specific payment deadline. The court applied Article 159 of the Chinese Contract Law, which requires buyers to pay the agreed price upon receipt of goods. The court also ordered the defendant to bear most of the litigation costs. The key legal principle from this case is that a company cannot escape liability for debts incurred by its employees in the ordinary course of business, especially when the goods are received and used by the company. This ruling reinforces consumer rights and clarifies that in personal injury claim or product liability contexts, a business is responsible for the actions of its authorized personnel, and the burden of proof lies with the company to show that an employee acted outside their authority.