Peach Sale Dispute Ends with Court Order for CNY 388.2
A court in Eastern China City has ordered a local peach buyer to pay a farmer CNY 388.2 for fruit delivered during the 2011 harvest season. The dispute arose after the buyer repeatedly failed to settle the amount, despite having issued written receipts for each delivery. The court found that a valid sales contract existed and that the buyer’s non-payment constituted a breach of contract.
The plaintiff, Mr. Li, a farmer living in a village in Eastern China City, sold fresh peaches in four separate deliveries to the defendant, Mr. Wang, who had announced over the village broadcast system that he would purchase peaches from local residents. For each delivery, Mr. Wang issued a handwritten receipt. The total amount due was CNY 388.2. Mr. Li made multiple requests for payment, but Mr. Wang never paid. Mr. Li then filed a lawsuit demanding immediate repayment.
During the court hearing, Mr. Li’s legal representatives appeared and presented four original receipts signed by Mr. Wang. They also submitted a certificate from the village committee confirming that Mr. Wang had used the village broadcast to solicit peach deliveries during the 2011 season. The defendant, Mr. Wang, did not appear in court and did not submit any written defense or evidence. The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence, noting that the receipts and the village certificate corroborated each other.
The court found that a sales contract had been formed when Mr. Li delivered peaches to Mr. Wang and Mr. Wang accepted them by issuing receipts. Under the contract, Mr. Wang was obligated to pay the agreed price. The court held that Mr. Wang’s failure to pay for over a year amounted to a breach of contract. The court ordered Mr. Wang to pay the full amount of CNY 388.2 within three days of the judgment taking effect. If payment was delayed, interest at a statutory rate would apply.
The legal basis for the decision rested on provisions of the Contract Law. The court cited Article 6 (good faith), Article 8 (binding effect of contracts), Article 60 (full performance of obligations), and Article 159 (buyer’s duty to pay the price). The court reasoned that the receipts served as clear evidence of the parties’ intention to form a binding sales agreement. Since the defendant did not dispute the claim or present any contrary evidence, the plaintiff’s case was well-supported.
This case illustrates how small-scale agricultural transactions can be resolved through formal legal channels when informal payment arrangements fail. The court’s willingness to rely on simple handwritten receipts and a village certificate highlights the importance of preserving documentary evidence in rural sales. Because the defendant did not participate in the proceedings, the court issued a default judgment, which is a common outcome when a party chooses not to respond. The relatively small amount involved did not prevent the court from applying contract law principles to protect the farmer’s rights.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.