Hangzhou court rejects ¥3,000 box order claim after full delivery goes unproven
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
A signed slip listed 500 boxes, but the record did not establish who signed it or checked the count. The court also found no proof that only 400 arrived.
The decision
The Hangzhou local people's court denied Lin Yue's claim for ¥3,000 from Zhou Jian for an order of 500 printed boxes. It ordered no payment because Lin had not proved that all 500 were delivered, a condition of the full-price claim.
The court also declined to calculate a reduced price based on Zhou's assertion that only 400 boxes arrived. That count, too, was unproven.
The court's reasons
The order messages established an agreement for 500 boxes at ¥3,000, payable after delivery. But they showed what Zhou ordered, not how many boxes arrived.
Both sides described a signed delivery slip listing 500 boxes, although no separate exhibit of the slip was identified in the record. The court treated the description as support for Lin's account, but gave it limited weight: the record did not establish who signed, whether that person was authorized to accept the goods or how the quantity was checked.
Lin, as the party seeking payment, had to prove the delivery condition underlying the full-price claim. Zhou did not have to prove a different count to defeat it. His proposed figure of 400 was unsupported by an employee account or another count record, so the court did not use it to calculate a partial price.
The parties' submissions
Lin relied on the order messages and the signed slip to seek the full price. Lin acknowledged that the record did not identify the signer or show that the signer personally counted the boxes, and said no witness or separate counting record was available.
Zhou accepted the order terms but disputed full delivery. He said an employee could testify that only 400 boxes arrived, challenged the slip's reliability and asked for payment to be limited to 400 boxes if that count was confirmed. The employee did not give testimony in the hearing record.
The background
Zhou withheld payment after an employee reported a shortage; Zhou had not personally counted the boxes. The following afternoon, he messaged Lin about 100 missing boxes and asked how to address the shortage.
The judgment establishes the agreed order and price, but not the number delivered. Its denial of the full claim is not a finding that exactly 400 boxes arrived, and the court made no money award to either side.