Dispute Over Unpaid Timber Payment Results in CNY 4204 Judgment

A court in Eastern China City ruled on a dispute arising from a timber purchase, ordering one defendant to pay the remaining balance of CNY 4204 while dismissing the claim against the other defendant. The case involved a plaintiff who operated a timber store and two defendants who were relatives. The plaintiff sought payment for timber supplied in 2010.

The plaintiff claimed that on November 16, 2010, both defendants came to his store and purchased timber worth a total of CNY 6897. One defendant, referred to as Mr. Zhang, issued a promissory note for that amount. The plaintiff stated that despite repeated requests, the defendants failed to pay. He initially sued for the full amount. The other defendant, Mr. Wang, admitted during the hearing that the timber was for his own use and that Mr. Zhang had acted on his behalf. Mr. Wang argued that he should bear the debt alone, and Mr. Zhang confirmed that he only handled the transaction for Mr. Wang.

At trial, the plaintiff presented the original promissory note dated November 16, 2010, which showed the debt of CNY 6897. The court also heard testimony from both defendants. Mr. Wang acknowledged that he had already offset part of the debt by providing timber worth CNY 2693, but he could not specify the exact amount offset and offered no documentary evidence to support his claim. Mr. Zhang maintained that he was merely an intermediary and that the timber was used by Mr. Wang.

The court found that a valid debt existed between the plaintiff and the defendants based on the timber sale. The evidence showed that Mr. Zhang wrote the promissory note for the purchase, and Mr. Wang later confirmed the debt and admitted responsibility. The court determined that after the partial offset of CNY 2693, the outstanding amount was CNY 4204. The court held that Mr. Wang was liable for this balance because he was the actual recipient and user of the timber, and he had expressly accepted the obligation to pay.

According to relevant law, specifically Article 109 and Article 161 of the Contract Law, a buyer who fails to pay the price must do so upon demand, and payment is due at the time of delivery if no other agreement exists. The court noted that Mr. Wang’s admission of the debt and his failure to prove the full offset shifted the remaining burden to him. The court rejected the claim against Mr. Zhang, as the evidence indicated he acted only as Mr. Wang’s agent for this transaction, and Mr. Wang had assumed sole liability.

This case illustrates how courts in China evaluate agency relationships and partial payment disputes in simple sales transactions. The ruling underscores that a party who acknowledges a debt and accepts goods is primarily responsible for payment, even if another person handled the paperwork. The court also emphasized the importance of providing clear evidence for any claimed offsets. Parties engaged in similar transactions should be aware that promissory notes and admissions in court can determine liability.

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