Court Dismisses Claim for Unpaid Kiln Fees of CNY 631,423
A court in Southern China City has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a kiln equipment manufacturer against a ceramics company in Eastern China City, ruling that the defendant had already overpaid for the contracted work. The plaintiff sought unpaid construction fees and contractual penalties totaling CNY 631,423, but the court found insufficient evidence to support its claims. The decision highlights the importance of clear record-keeping in commercial transactions.
The plaintiff, a kiln furnace company based in Southern China City, entered into two contracts with the defendant, a building ceramics company in Eastern China City. The first contract, signed in March 2007, covered the construction of a kiln production line. A second contract, signed in October 2009, covered modifications to the same line. The total contract price for both projects was CNY 4,900,000. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had only paid part of the amount and still owed CNY 551,020, plus CNY 80,403 in late-payment penalties.
During the trial, the plaintiff presented the two contracts and a receipt stub for CNY 4,200,000. The plaintiff argued that this stub was issued at the defendant’s request to help the defendant obtain a bank loan, and that no actual payment had been made. The defendant produced 23 receipts showing payments totaling CNY 9,003,000, including the disputed CNY 4,200,000 receipt. The defendant also submitted a certificate concerning material costs. The court reviewed all evidence. The plaintiff initially sought a handwriting analysis of some receipts but later withdrew the request.
The court found that the defendant’s receipts, many of which bore the plaintiff’s official stamp, demonstrated that the defendant had paid CNY 4,803,000 under the 17 confirmed receipts alone. Adding the disputed CNY 4,200,000 receipt brought the total to CNY 9,003,000, far exceeding the contract price of CNY 4,900,000. The plaintiff’s claim that the CNY 4,200,000 receipt was issued only for loan purposes was not supported by any notation on the receipt or by other evidence. The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to prove that any portion of the receipts reflected payments for other unrelated transactions.
Under the Civil Procedure Law and relevant evidentiary rules, the plaintiff bore the burden of proving the alleged unpaid amount. The court held that the plaintiff’s own receipts contradicted its position. The plaintiff’s denial of having received certain amounts was not backed by credible contrary evidence. The court therefore rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant still owed money. The legal principle applied was that a party claiming a debt must provide clear proof, and ambiguous or self-serving explanations without supporting documentation will not suffice.
The court entered judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff was ordered to bear the reduced court costs of CNY 5,057.12. This case serves as a reminder that receipts issued under a company stamp carry strong evidentiary weight, and that parties should carefully document any special arrangements, such as receipts issued for financing purposes, in writing at the time of issuance. Without such documentation, later challenges to the authenticity of payments are unlikely to succeed.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.