Dispute Over Unpaid Peach Sale: Court Orders Payment of CNY 148.8
A local court in Central China has ruled in favor of a peach farmer seeking payment for a small batch of fruit delivered to a village buyer in 2011. The plaintiff, Mr. Chen, claimed that the defendant, Mr. Wang, failed to pay 148.8 yuan for 93 jin of peaches. The court found that a valid sales contract existed and ordered the defendant to settle the amount plus interest. The case highlights how even minor agricultural transactions are subject to contract law.
In 2011, during the peach harvest season, Mr. Wang broadcasted an announcement over the village public address system, inviting residents to sell their fresh peaches to him. On June 27, 2011, Mr. Chen delivered 93 jin of peaches to Mr. Wang at an agreed price of 1.6 yuan per jin, totaling 148.8 yuan. Mr. Wang issued a handwritten receipt to Mr. Chen on the same day. Despite repeated demands over the following months, Mr. Wang never paid the amount. Mr. Chen filed a lawsuit in December 2012 to recover the debt.
The case proceeded as a summary trial. Mr. Wang was properly notified by the court but did not appear at the hearing. Mr. Chen attended with his two authorized representatives, Mr. Gao and Mr. Wen. The plaintiff submitted two pieces of evidence: the original receipt signed by Mr. Wang, and a certificate from the village committee confirming that Mr. Wang had indeed used the village broadcast to solicit peach purchases during the 2011 season. The court reviewed both items and found that they corroborated each other. The evidence was admitted as reliable proof of the transaction.
The court determined that a sales contract had been formed when Mr. Chen delivered the peaches and Mr. Wang accepted them with a receipt. The defendant, by receiving the goods and failing to pay, had breached his contractual obligation. The court held that Mr. Wang must pay the 148.8 yuan within three days of the judgment taking effect. In addition, if payment was delayed, Mr. Wang would be liable for double the overdue interest under the relevant civil procedure rules. The court also ordered Mr. Wang to bear the 25 yuan case acceptance fee.
According to relevant law, specifically Articles 6, 8, 60, and 159 of the Contract Law, parties must act in good faith and fulfill their agreed obligations. The receipt served as prima facie evidence of a binding sale. The defendant’s absence did not prevent the court from ruling based on the credible evidence before it. The court emphasized that the transaction, though small, created a legally enforceable duty to pay. The ruling reinforces the principle that verbal agreements or informal arrangements can become binding contracts when supported by written proof.
This judgment serves as a practical reminder for farmers and small-scale sellers in rural areas to obtain written receipts when selling goods on credit. Even modest amounts are protected under civil law. The case also shows that courts may proceed with default judgments when a defendant fails to respond. While the sum involved was minimal, the legal cost and effort of litigation may outweigh the debt for very small claims. Parties should weigh the benefits of formal enforcement against the resources required. The decision underscores that no transaction is too small for legal accountability.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.