Page 24 - 2017 Policy Watch
P. 24
icy Watch: The Circuit Courts of the Supreme People’s Court
Wang Zuoxin and Qu Yeli and these two companies also and Sales Contracts for coal valued at RMB49,000,000 and
had affiliated relationships with Shaqi Company, Shanghai RMB35,000,000 respectively on January 24th and February
Trevi and Shenyang Trevi. Under this circumstance, the 4th 2013. After delivering the coal, Changlu Company
people’s court retrieved the archive filed with the bureaus issued a Value-added Tax Invoice in the amount of RMB
for industry and commerce, the transaction details of the RMB84,000,000. Shenyang Company endorsed the Bank’s
bank accounts and other evidence of the various affiliated Acceptance Bill to Changlu Company and then delivered
companies using the court’s power, and discovered through it to Jianping Company. However, Jianping Company
trial that the amounts of the loan claimed by Oubao did not deliver this Bill to Changlu Company. Instead,
Company were contradictory. The Parties were unable to it discounted the Bill itself. The Legal Representative of
explain the time, location and person handling the loan Jianping Company alleged that he had obtained consent
and other details of the loan clearly; there existed circular from Changlu Company to do this.
transfer of money among various affiliated companies; the
use of the loan was contradictory to the purpose agreed In addition, it was discovered that Changlu Company
to the contract. Many acts during the litigation and the and Shenyang Company entered into two Product Purchase
enforcement were illogical, etc. Oubao Company and Trevi and Sales Contracts for coal valued at RMB97,500,000 in
Company failed to make reasonable explanation about the total on August 7th and 9th 2012. The Shenyang Company
above contradictory and counterintuitive issues. The Court, also endorsed the Bank’s Acceptance Bills to Jianping
combining the other evidence of this case, determined Company, which were then forwarded to Changlu Company
that the claim for creditor’s right by Oubao Company was by Jianping Company, and Changlu Company received
falsified, based in part on the fund transfers between it and the Bills. Furthermore, it was ascertained that Shenyang
Trevi Company and should not be supported. Therefore, Company, Jianping Company and Changlu Company
the Court rejected the appeal, sustained the original entered into a Tripartite Agreement on purchase and sale of
judgment and decided to fine both Oubao Company and coal in July 2013, agreeing that Changlu Company should
Trevi Company each in the amount of RMB500,000. first pay RMB66,500,000 to Jianping Company, who should
then pay said amount to Shenyang Company, after which,
Comment: Shenyang Company should deliver the goods to Changlu
Company. Before signing the Tripartite Agreement, The
The Parties of this case were from Liaoning Province Shenyang Company requested the Changlu Company
and Shanghai Municipality. This was the first false civil provide the receipt for the RMB84,000,000.
litigation determined by the Supreme People’s Court and
the Grand Justice Hu Yunteng held the presiding judge. The Changlu Company claimed that Shenyang
Company failed to pay the price for 98,000 tons of coal
(3) China Railway Materials Shenyang Co., Ltd. v. and therefore requested the Court order The Shenyang
Changlu Salt Industry Corporation of Tianjin Company to pay the price in the amount of RMB4,900,000
and compensate for its losses immediately.
Case Brief:
Judgment Result:
Through the contact and negotiation by Jianping
Industrial Fuel Co., Ltd. of Tai’an County, a party not involved The High People’s Court of Liaoning Province of the
in this case (hereinafter referred to as “Jianping Company”), first instance held that Changlu Company had fulfilled its
Changlu Salt Industry Corporation of Tianjin (hereinafter obligation of delivering the goods as agreed whereas The
referred to as “Changlu Company”) and China Railway Shenyang Company failed to pay the price for the goods.
Materials Shenyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as The acts of the staff of Jianping Company did not constitute
“Shenyang Company”) entered into two Product Purchase agency by estoppel. Therefore, the Court ordered The
24
Wang Zuoxin and Qu Yeli and these two companies also and Sales Contracts for coal valued at RMB49,000,000 and
had affiliated relationships with Shaqi Company, Shanghai RMB35,000,000 respectively on January 24th and February
Trevi and Shenyang Trevi. Under this circumstance, the 4th 2013. After delivering the coal, Changlu Company
people’s court retrieved the archive filed with the bureaus issued a Value-added Tax Invoice in the amount of RMB
for industry and commerce, the transaction details of the RMB84,000,000. Shenyang Company endorsed the Bank’s
bank accounts and other evidence of the various affiliated Acceptance Bill to Changlu Company and then delivered
companies using the court’s power, and discovered through it to Jianping Company. However, Jianping Company
trial that the amounts of the loan claimed by Oubao did not deliver this Bill to Changlu Company. Instead,
Company were contradictory. The Parties were unable to it discounted the Bill itself. The Legal Representative of
explain the time, location and person handling the loan Jianping Company alleged that he had obtained consent
and other details of the loan clearly; there existed circular from Changlu Company to do this.
transfer of money among various affiliated companies; the
use of the loan was contradictory to the purpose agreed In addition, it was discovered that Changlu Company
to the contract. Many acts during the litigation and the and Shenyang Company entered into two Product Purchase
enforcement were illogical, etc. Oubao Company and Trevi and Sales Contracts for coal valued at RMB97,500,000 in
Company failed to make reasonable explanation about the total on August 7th and 9th 2012. The Shenyang Company
above contradictory and counterintuitive issues. The Court, also endorsed the Bank’s Acceptance Bills to Jianping
combining the other evidence of this case, determined Company, which were then forwarded to Changlu Company
that the claim for creditor’s right by Oubao Company was by Jianping Company, and Changlu Company received
falsified, based in part on the fund transfers between it and the Bills. Furthermore, it was ascertained that Shenyang
Trevi Company and should not be supported. Therefore, Company, Jianping Company and Changlu Company
the Court rejected the appeal, sustained the original entered into a Tripartite Agreement on purchase and sale of
judgment and decided to fine both Oubao Company and coal in July 2013, agreeing that Changlu Company should
Trevi Company each in the amount of RMB500,000. first pay RMB66,500,000 to Jianping Company, who should
then pay said amount to Shenyang Company, after which,
Comment: Shenyang Company should deliver the goods to Changlu
Company. Before signing the Tripartite Agreement, The
The Parties of this case were from Liaoning Province Shenyang Company requested the Changlu Company
and Shanghai Municipality. This was the first false civil provide the receipt for the RMB84,000,000.
litigation determined by the Supreme People’s Court and
the Grand Justice Hu Yunteng held the presiding judge. The Changlu Company claimed that Shenyang
Company failed to pay the price for 98,000 tons of coal
(3) China Railway Materials Shenyang Co., Ltd. v. and therefore requested the Court order The Shenyang
Changlu Salt Industry Corporation of Tianjin Company to pay the price in the amount of RMB4,900,000
and compensate for its losses immediately.
Case Brief:
Judgment Result:
Through the contact and negotiation by Jianping
Industrial Fuel Co., Ltd. of Tai’an County, a party not involved The High People’s Court of Liaoning Province of the
in this case (hereinafter referred to as “Jianping Company”), first instance held that Changlu Company had fulfilled its
Changlu Salt Industry Corporation of Tianjin (hereinafter obligation of delivering the goods as agreed whereas The
referred to as “Changlu Company”) and China Railway Shenyang Company failed to pay the price for the goods.
Materials Shenyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as The acts of the staff of Jianping Company did not constitute
“Shenyang Company”) entered into two Product Purchase agency by estoppel. Therefore, the Court ordered The
24
