Court Orders Payment of CNY 412,507 in Textile Supply Dispute
A civil dispute over unpaid textile supplies has resulted in a court judgment ordering a company to pay CNY 412,507 to an individual supplier. The case, heard in a court in Eastern China City, involved a claim for outstanding payment for polyester filament yarn delivered under a sales contract. The defendant company failed to appear at the hearing, leading to a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This ruling highlights the legal obligations of buyers to honor payment terms in commercial transactions.
The plaintiff, Mr. Zhang, a farmer by occupation, supplied DTY polyester filament yarn to the defendant, Eastern China City Spring Orchid Industrial Co., Ltd., starting in February 2011. The parties entered into a written master purchase and sales contract on February 12, 2011. Mr. Zhang delivered goods on a rolling basis over the following months. On January 21, 2012, the defendant made a partial payment and issued a payment slip and a receipt acknowledging an outstanding balance of CNY 412,507. Later, on February 18, 2012, the company provided a formal debt list confirming the same amount remained unpaid. Mr. Zhang subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the principal plus interest, though he later dropped the interest claim.
At the court hearing on March 14, 2012, Mr. Zhang appeared in person. The defendant company, despite being properly summoned, did not attend and offered no defense. Mr. Zhang submitted two pieces of evidence: a payment receipt and a payment slip showing the outstanding debt, along with a copy of the master sales contract. To verify the facts, the court independently obtained a debt list from the case file, which also recorded the CNY 412,507 balance. Mr. Zhang confirmed the accuracy of this document. Since the defendant failed to appear, it forfeited its right to challenge the evidence.
The court found the evidence reliable and consistent. The payment receipt and slip matched each other and aligned with the official debt list. Although the sales contract was a copy, it corroborated the other documents. Based on this, the court established that a valid sales relationship existed between the parties. Mr. Zhang had fulfilled his delivery obligations, and the defendant had confirmed the debt twice in writing. The court concluded that the defendant’s failure to pay constituted a breach of contract. Therefore, it ordered the defendant to pay the full CNY 412,507 within seven days of the judgment taking effect.
Under Chinese contract law, a buyer must pay the agreed price for goods received. The court cited Article 107 of the Contract Law, which holds a party liable for breach if it fails to perform contractual duties, and Article 109, which allows the seller to demand payment. Articles 159 and 161 further require the buyer to pay the agreed amount on time. Because the defendant defaulted, the court imposed statutory consequences, including the possibility of double interest for delayed payment if the company does not comply within the specified period. The court also reduced the case fee by half, ordering the defendant to cover CNY 3,740.
This case serves as a practical reminder that written acknowledgments of debt can be powerful evidence in commercial disputes. The plaintiff’s careful documentation—payment slips, receipts, and a formal debt list—was instrumental in securing the judgment. For businesses and individuals engaged in supply transactions, maintaining clear records of deliveries and outstanding balances is advisable. Default judgments are common when a defendant fails to respond, but the onus remains on the plaintiff to prove the claim. Here, the court’s ruling reinforces the principle that courts will enforce payment obligations where the facts are clearly established.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.