CNY 151,732.82 Contract Debt Dispute: Court Orders Payment

A court in Eastern China City has ruled in favor of a logistics company in a contract dispute over unpaid paper supply. The plaintiff, Eastern China City Vehicle Logistics Co., Ltd., sought payment of CNY 151,732.82 from a technology company based in Central China City. The defendant acknowledged the debt but claimed inability to pay due to business difficulties. After reviewing the evidence, the court ordered full payment plus legal costs.

Between February and July 2009, the parties entered into seven separate contracts for the sale of Liwen brand paper. Under each contract, the defendant would submit a written purchase order, and the plaintiff would arrange delivery once the order exceeded 35 tons. Payment was due within 30 days of delivery, with the plaintiff issuing VAT invoices. The parties performed under the contracts, and by June 30, 2010, a mutual account reconciliation confirmed that the defendant owed the plaintiff CNY 151,732.82. Despite repeated requests, the defendant refused to pay, citing lack of funds.

During the court hearing, the plaintiff presented a confirmation letter dated July 8, 2010, which detailed the outstanding balance as of June 30, 2010. The defendant received this letter and returned it with its financial seal affixed to the “data confirmed correct” section, along with an authorized signature. Both parties agreed on the authenticity of the document and the amount owed. The defendant did not dispute the facts but argued that its company had ceased production and lacked cash to settle the debt, offering instead to offset the amount with company assets.

The court held that the seven sales contracts were valid legal agreements reflecting the true intentions of both parties. The evidence showed that the plaintiff had fulfilled its delivery obligations and that the defendant had acknowledged the debt through the signed confirmation letter. The court found that the defendant’s failure to pay constituted a breach of contract. Referring to applicable contract law, the court stated that refusal to pay due to financial hardship did not excuse the obligation.

Under Article 159 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, a buyer must pay the agreed price upon receipt of goods. The court emphasized that the confirmation letter served as conclusive proof of the debt and that the defendant’s admission in the hearing further supported the claim. The court rejected the defendant’s argument of inability to pay, noting that financial difficulty does not relieve a party from performing its contractual duties. The defendant was ordered to pay the full amount within ten days of the judgment, plus interest for any delayed payment calculated under civil procedure rules.

This case reinforces the principle that a signed account confirmation is strong evidence in commercial debt disputes. Businesses should carefully manage credit terms and maintain clear records of deliveries and payments. The court’s decision also highlights that financial hardship is not a valid defense for non-payment. The defendant was further ordered to bear the litigation costs of CNY 3,335. The judgment is subject to appeal within fifteen days of service.

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