Peach Sale Dispute Results in Judgment for CNY 439.6

A court in Central China City has ruled in favor of a peach farmer who sued a buyer for non-payment after delivering fresh peaches in 2011. The court ordered the buyer to pay 439.6 yuan, finding that a valid sales contract had been formed and the buyer had breached it by failing to pay. The defendant did not appear at trial.

The plaintiff, Mr. Zhao, an elderly farmer from a village in Central China City, claimed that in June 2011, the defendant, Mr. Zhang, used the village broadcast system to call on residents to deliver their peaches to him. On June 27, 2011, Mr. Zhao delivered peaches in two batches: 154 jin at 1.6 yuan per jin, and 161 jin at 1.2 yuan per jin, for a total of 439.6 yuan. Mr. Zhang issued two handwritten receipts on the same day. Despite repeated demands, Mr. Zhang never paid the amount.

The court held a hearing under a simplified procedure. Mr. Zhao appeared with his legal representatives, Mr. Gao and Mr. Wen. The defendant, Mr. Zhang, was properly served with notice but did not attend the hearing and filed no defense. The evidence presented included the two receipts signed by the defendant and a certificate from the village committee confirming that the defendant had broadcasted a call for peach deliveries during the 2011 harvest season. The court found that the receipts and the certificate corroborated each other and established the facts as alleged.

The court found that by delivering the peaches and accepting the receipts, both parties had entered into a sales contract. The defendant was obligated to pay the agreed price promptly. His failure to do so constituted a breach of contract. The court held that Mr. Zhao’s demand for payment was legally sound and supported by the evidence. It ordered the defendant to pay the full 439.6 yuan within three days of the judgment becoming effective.

According to relevant law, specifically Article 6, Article 8, Article 60, and Article 159 of the Contract Law, a lawfully formed contract is binding on both parties, and the buyer must pay the price for the goods received. The receipts served as written acknowledgment of the transaction, confirming the quantity, price, and total amount. The court also noted that the defendant’s absence did not prevent a default judgment, as the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient and uncontested.

This case illustrates that even small-value agricultural sales are enforceable under contract law when the seller obtains written documentation. The court’s decision reinforces the importance of keeping receipts and other written records in informal commercial transactions. It also shows that a defendant who ignores a lawsuit risks a default judgment. The ruling is final unless appealed within 15 days.

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