The plaintiff, Dandong Hengfeng Electromechanical Equipment Co., Ltd., is located in XX, Zhenxing District, Dandong City.
The legal representative is XX, the chairman of the company.
The entrusted agent is Wu XX, a lawyer of Jiangsu Zhengwei Law Firm.
The defendant, Jiangsu Wudong Machinery Co., Ltd., has its domicile at XX, Panjia Industrial Cluster, Xueyan Town, Wujin District, Changzhou City.
The legal representative is Zhong XX, the general manager of the company.
The entrusted agent is Yang Ting, a lawyer of Jiangsu Boaixing Law Firm.
The entrusted agent is Zhang Jing, a lawyer of Jiangsu Boaixing Law Firm.
The case between the plaintiff Dandong Hengfeng Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. and the defendant Jiangsu Wudong Machinery Co., Ltd. over the dispute over the sales contract was accepted by the court on August 1, 2012. After the case was filed, the court first applied the summary procedure according to law, and the judge Bao Ximin was the sole judge, then turned to the ordinary procedure. The collegial panel was composed of the judge Bao Ximin, the people's jurors Wang Tongqing, and Ji XX, and on September 3, the same year On November 30, the hearing was held in public for the second time. Wu XX, the entrusted agent of the plaintiff Dandong Hengfeng Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd., and Zhang Jing, the entrusted agent of the defendant Jiangsu Wudong Machinery Co., Ltd., both attended the court for the second time, and Yang Ting, the entrusted agent of the defendant Jiangsu Wudong Machinery Co., Ltd., attended the court for the first time. The trial of this case has now been concluded.
The plaintiff Dandong Hengfeng Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. claimed that the defendant had purchased cable drums from the plaintiff for many times since 2008, and the defendant only paid part of the money. As of May 19, 2012, the defendant still owed the plaintiff 26852 yuan for goods. Therefore, the defendant is requested to pay the plaintiff 26852 yuan and interest (from May 31, 2012 to the repayment date determined by the effective judgment, the interest is calculated at the bank loan interest rate for the same period).
The plaintiff Dandong Hengfeng Electromechanical Equipment Co., Ltd. submitted the following evidence to the Court in support of its claim: 1. Five sales contracts signed between the plaintiff and the defendant from May 9, 2008 to March 4, 2011, proving the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant had a sales contract relationship between cable reels. 2. On June 12, 2010 and March 17, 2011, Hongxing freight bills were made in one copy respectively, which stated that "the shipper is the plaintiff, the consignee is Li X (the buyer of the defendant), the delivery address is Panjia Town, Wujin, Changzhou, the consignee's telephone number is 158XXXX6663, the name of the goods is the winder, and the quantity is 4 and 2 pieces respectively", The fact that the plaintiff has fulfilled the supply obligation in the contract dated March 4, 2011. 3. Five copies of VAT invoices, proving the fact that the plaintiff has issued corresponding VAT invoices to the defendant according to the agreement, except for the contract object of 16800 yuan signed on March 4, 2011, which has not been invoiced. 4. Three bank payment vouchers proving that the defendant paid the plaintiff 76352 yuan in total and still owed the plaintiff 26852 yuan. 5. The plaintiff sent a lawyer's letter to the defendant on May 20, 2012, proving the fact that the plaintiff required the defendant to pay off the goods price of 26852 yuan within seven days from the date of receiving this lawyer's letter. 6. On July 25, 2012, the telephone recording of the plaintiff's employee Li XX and the defendant's employee Li X proved that the defendant had received the goods agreed in the contract on March 4, 2011.
The defendant Jiangsu Wudong Machinery Co., Ltd. argued that the plaintiff's claim was untrue, and the defendant only owed the plaintiff 10052 yuan for goods. After the Plaintiff and the Defendant signed the contract on March 4, 2011, the Defendant did not receive the subject matter of 16800 yuan as agreed in the contract, and the Plaintiff has not yet fulfilled its obligation of delivery, so the Defendant reserves the right to pursue the Plaintiff's liability for breach of contract for delayed delivery.
Through cross examination: the defendant has no objection to the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, but believes that the two Hongxing freight bills submitted by the plaintiff cannot prove the fact that the plaintiff has delivered 16800 yuan of goods in the contract signed on March 4, 2011 to the defendant. In the telephone recording on July 25, 2012, the defendant's employee Li X was not the defendant's warehouse staff, and he did not confirm whether the defendant had received the last batch of 16800 yuan goods in the telephone, and the defendant did not receive this batch of goods.
Since the defendant has no objection to the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the court confirms the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.
It was found that the plaintiff and the defendant signed the cable reel sales contract on May 9, 2008, August 13, September 3, 2010, April 13, 2010 and March 4, 2011 respectively, and the plaintiff provided the defendant with the cable reel. Both parties have agreed on product quality, delivery time, payment method and term in the contract. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have no objection to the fact that the contract signed between May 9, 2008 and April 13, 2010 was performed. During this period, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with 86404 yuan of cable reels (8500 yuan of cable reels, of which both parties did not sign a written sales contract), and the Defendant paid 76352 yuan after receiving the goods. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have no objection to the fact that the cable reel sales contract was signed on March 4, 2011. The contract agreed that the Plaintiff would supply the Defendant with one cable reel JQS-70-1 and one cable reel JQS-50-1, with a total price of 16800 yuan; The plaintiff shall deliver the goods within 7 days after signing the contract according to the model and technical requirements provided by the defendant, and the plaintiff shall entrust a logistics company to deliver the goods to the defendant, and the transportation costs shall be paid by the plaintiff; The invoice shall be delivered to the defendant, and the payment shall be made after the acceptance. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff delivered two cable reels to Hongxing Freight Company for transportation to the defendant on March 17, 2011 according to the contract. Thereafter, the plaintiff entrusted a lawyer to send a letter to the defendant on May 20, 2012, requesting the defendant to pay 26852 yuan within seven days from the date of receiving the letter. The defendant did not reply after receiving the letter. Therefore, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit to the court.
During the trial, the plaintiff and the defendant had no objection to the authenticity of the telephone recording submitted by the plaintiff on July 25, 2012 between the plaintiff's employee Li XX and the defendant's employee Li X. In the recording, the defendant's employee Li X affirmed that "the invoice for the previous goods has been issued and has been put into storage; For two goods of 16800 yuan, the goods were in the defendant's warehouse, but the receipt could not be found and the plaintiff did not issue the corresponding invoice to deliver them to the defendant. According to the defendant's system, the defendant's warehouse should check and accept the receipt and the corresponding invoice against the contract before delivering them to the financial department for entry, and then settle the payment with the plaintiff ". So Li X, the defendant's employee, requested the plaintiff to deliver the delivery note of two goods worth 16800 yuan to Li X.
The Court believes that the parties should fully perform their obligations according to the contract. If a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or fails to perform its contractual obligations in accordance with the agreement, it shall be liable for breach of contract by continuing to perform, taking remedial measures or compensating for losses. In this case, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is valid, and both parties should perform their respective obligations according to the contract. The plaintiff and the defendant had no objection to the fact that the plaintiff had supplied 86404 yuan to the defendant before March 4, 2011, and the defendant had paid 76352 yuan to the plaintiff after receiving the goods. After the plaintiff and the defendant signed the contract on March 4, 2011, the plaintiff submitted the Hongxing goods waybill on March 17, 2011, which stated that "the shipper is the plaintiff and the consignee is Li X (the buyer of the defendant) The delivery address is Panjia Town, Wujin, Changzhou, the consignee's telephone number is 158XXXX6663, the name of the goods is the coiler, the quantity is 2, the freight is 550 yuan ", and in combination with the contents of the telephone recording of the plaintiff's employee Li XX and the defendant's employee Li X on July 25, 2012, it is enough to conclude that after the original and the defendant signed the contract on March 4, 2011, The Plaintiff has fulfilled its obligation to deliver two cable reels worth 16800 yuan to the Defendant. So far, the defendant has owed the plaintiff 26852 yuan in total, so the court supports the plaintiff's claim for the defendant to pay 26852 yuan in total. Whereas the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed in the contract signed on March 4, 2011 on the payment method of "payment upon arrival of goods and invoice, and payment upon acceptance", and the Plaintiff failed to deliver the invoice of 16800 yuan to the Defendant at the time of filing the lawsuit, Therefore, the Court does not support the plaintiff's claim for the defendant to pay the interest calculated at the bank loan interest rate for the same period from May 31, 2012 to the repayment date determined by the effective judgment for the amount of 26852 yuan owed. In conclusion, in accordance with Articles 109 and 159 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
1、 Jiangsu Wudong Machinery Co., Ltd. shall pay Dandong Hengfeng Electromechanical Equipment Co., Ltd. 26852 yuan within ten days from the effective date of this judgment.
2、 Reject the remaining claims of Dandong Hengfeng Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd.
If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the delayed period shall be doubled in accordance with Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
The case acceptance fee of 476 yuan shall be borne by Jiangsu Wudong Machinery Co., Ltd.
If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you can submit a petition of appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the opposite party, and appeal to the Changzhou Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province. At the same time, according to the relevant provisions of the Measures for Payment of Litigation Costs, Pay the appeal case acceptance fee to the court in advance (the payee is Changzhou Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province, the bank of deposit is Changzhou Branch Business Department of Bank of Jiangsu, account number 804XXXX138963).
Chief Judge Bao Ximin
People's juror Wang Tongqing
People's juror Ji Tieqing
Clerk Jiang XX
