Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

China 23 March 2004 Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court [District Court] (Singapore ___ Company v. Dongling Trade Company, Shanghai Xuyang Trade Company, Yingfang Xi & Yunli, Luo) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/040323c1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20040323 (23 March 2004)

JURISDICTION: People's Republic of China

TRIBUNAL: Shanghai No. I. Intermediate People's Court [District Court]

JUDGE(S): Chief Judge: LI, Yuzhen; Agent Judge: LI, Chun; Agent Judge: HU, Yongqing

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: Unavailable

CASE NAME: Singapore ___ Company v. Dongling Trade Company, Shanghai Xuyang Trade Company, Jingfang Xi & Yunli, Luo

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Singapore (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: People's Republic of China (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Chemical products


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [Article 1(1)(a)]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 4 ; 53 ; 78

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

4B [Scope of Convention (issues excluded): agency issues];

53A [Buyer's obligation to pay price of goods];

78A [Interest on delay in receiving price or any other sum in arrears]

Descriptors: Scope of Convention ; Agency issues ; Price ; Interest

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Chinese): Click here for Chinese text of case; see also CISG-China Case [IPC/18]: <http://aff.whu.edu.cn/cisgchina/en/news_view.asp?newsid=60>

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Case text (English translation)

Queen Mary Case Translation Programme

The First Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai [23 March 2004]

Singapore ___ Company v. Dongling Trade Company et al.

Translation [*] by Meihua Xu [**]

Edited by Zheng Xie [***]

-   Proceedings
-   Position of the parties
-   Findings of the court
-   Issues present and court's resolution of these issues
-   Judgment

[PROCEEDINGS]

PARTIES AND COUNSEL. Plaintiff: Singapore __ Company (hereafter, [Seller]); Address: Singapore __ District North Europe Center No. __ International Business Zone No. __; Legal Representative: ___, shareholder; Attorney: Wu, Haolun and Chen, Zhiwe, Lawyers of Beijing Kangda Law Firm Shanghai Office; Defendant: Dongling Trade Company (hereafter, [Buyer]); Address: 316 Bowen Road, Pudong New District, Shanghai; Legal Representative: __, Present; Attorney: Ma, Yong and Wang, Qiang, lawyers of Shanghai Yishi Law Firm; Defendant: Shanghai Xuyang Trade Company Liquidation Group(hereafter, "L Group"); Address: Tianmashan County Economic Zone, Songjiang District, Shanghai; Manager: Xi, Jingfang; Attorney: Pan, Fudi, Lawyer of Shanghai Liting Law Firm; Defendant: Xi, Jingfang, Chinese, born on 10 January 1934, address: 410-18-303 Haifang Road, Shanghai; Attorney: Pan, Fudi, Lawyer of Shanghai Liting Law Firm; Defendant: Luo, Yunli, Female, Chinese, born on 10 December 1939, address: 243-4-703, Zhaojiabin Road, Shanghai; Attorney: Pan, Fudi, Lawyer of Shanghai Liting Law Firm; Third Party: China __ Company, Address: Shanghai International Trade Center __ F, Yanan West Road, Shanghai; Legal Representative: __, President; Agent: Zhang, Feng, Yang, Yongping, employees of China __ Company.

On 18 July 2003, this court accepted the case involving a dispute between the [Buyer], L Group, Xi, Jingfang, Luo, Yunli, the Third Party and the [Seller], and formed a collegial bench to hear the case on 11 December 2003. The attorneys of the [Seller], Chen, Zhiwei and Wu, Haolun, the attorneys of the [Buyer], Ma, Yong and Wang, Qiang, the attorney of L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli, Pan, Fudi, and the agents of the Third Party, Zhang, Feng and Yang, Yongping attended the court session. This case has been concluded.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

- [Seller]'s position

[Seller] alleges that:

From July to October 2001, the [Seller] and the [Buyer] signed eight sales contracts by which the [Seller] was to provide chemical products to the [Buyer]; the destination port was Shanghai; the [Buyer] was to make payment within 85 days of the issuance of the B/L; the total price for the goods was US $249,999.

After concluding the contracts, the [Seller] completed its obligations in accordance with the contracts, but the [Buyer] failed to make payment after accepting the goods. During the negotiation of the contracts, the [Buyer] expressed that its client, Shanghai Xuyang Trade Company (hereafter "Xuyang Company"), would bear the responsibility to pay the price for the goods, and Xuyang Company formed the L Group during liquidation with members of Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli, indicating that its former shareholders, Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli, were responsible for liquidation. Based on this, the [Seller] asks the court to rule that the [Buyer], L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli shall jointly and severally bear the liability for payment of US $246,999 and the penalty for the delay in making payment at 2/10,000 daily interest rate.

- [Buyer]'s position

The [Buyer] argues that:

As the agent of the [Seller] in Huadong Area, Xuyang Company has no foreign trade power, and therefore, it authorized the [Buyer] to act as its foreign trade agent. Based on their agreement, Xuyang Company was to make payment to the [Buyer] first and then, the [Buyer] was to pay the contract price to the [Seller]. When Xuyang Company was unable to make payment, the [Seller] should claim the contract price from Xuyang Company, but not from the [Buyer]. The [Buyer] should not be liable for the contract price. The [Seller]'s claims against the [Buyer] should be dismissed.

- L Group's position

L Group argues that:

Xuyang Company has never signed the eight international sales contracts in this case, nor received any goods under those contracts. Moreover, Xuyang Company has never indicated that it was willing to make payment for the eight contracts, so L Group should not be held liable for the payment and, asks the court to dismiss the [Seller]'s claims against L Group.

- Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli's positions

Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli argue that:

They have fulfilled their obligations to invest money in Xuyang Company and should not be held liable for the debt incurred after Xuyang Company was closed. In addition, the signature on the liquidation document, which indicated that Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli shall be responsible for liquidation, was forged. Therefore, Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli do not bear joint and several liability for the payment in this case, and the court should dismiss the [Seller]'s claims against them.

- The Third Party's position

The Third Party argues that:

The [Buyer]'s allegation that it imported the goods under the contracts in this case as entrusted by the Third Party was not consistent with the facts.

Evidence submitted by the [Seller]

To support its claims, the [Seller] submitted the following evidence:

1. Contract 01-C1-367S-W and the corresponding B/L and invoice, proving that the defendants delayed in paying US $1,020;

2. Contract 01-C1-415S-W and the corresponding B/L and invoice, proving that the defendants delayed in paying US $41,495;

3. Contract 01-C1-440S-W and the corresponding B/L, packing list, customs application form, and invoice, proving that the defendants delayed in paying US $23,724;

4. Contract 01-C1-441S-W and the corresponding B/L, and invoice, proving that the defendants delayed in paying US $38,965;

5. Contract 01-C1-452S-W and the corresponding B/L, packing list, customs application form, and invoice, proving that the defendants delayed in paying US $22,760;

6. Contract 01-C1-462S-W and the corresponding B/L, and invoice, proving that the defendants delayed in paying US $61,347;

7. Contract 01-C1-489S-W and the corresponding B/L, packing list, customs application form, and invoice, proving that the defendants delayed in paying US $15,858;

8. Contract 01-C1-495S-W and the corresponding B/L, and invoice, proving that the defendants delayed in paying US $41,830;

9. An account check certificate issued by the [Buyer] to the [Seller], asking the [Seller] to cooperate in auditing, which proves that the [Buyer] had admitted that it delayed in making payment to the [Seller];

10. A related document regarding the performance of Contract 01-C1-412S-W, indicating the process of contract performance and the trade practices between the [Buyer] and the [Seller], which proves that the [Buyer] owes the [Seller] the contract price of US $246,999;

11. The notary seals issued by Shanghai Notary Office on B/L, customs application, and invoice mentioned in the aforesaid items 3, 5, and 7, which prove that the [Buyer] failed to make payment after the [Seller] delivered the goods;

12. Customs application material for the contract goods in this case, which proves that the [Buyer] and the [Seller] have an international sales contractual relationship and the [Buyer] and Xuyang Company have a domestic sale of goods contractual relationship;

13. Material proving that Song, Jianxiong and Xu, Bing are the employees of the [Buyer], which indicates that the aforesaid two persons signed the international sales contracts in this case on behalf of the [Buyer];

14. Xuyang Company's industrial and commercial enterprise cancellation material, which indicates that Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli are responsible for liquidation;

15. Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli's family registered material, which proves the aforesaid persons qualifications as natural persons;

16. The Third Party's confirmation letter, which proves that the Third Party has never entered into "the General Agreement" with the [Buyer] and Xuyang Company;

17. The Third Party's Article of Incorporation, which proves that there is no investment relationship between the [Seller] and the Third Party;

18. Customs application material, which indicates that the [Buyer] was the real purchaser of the goods, but not an international trade agent.

Defendants' opinions on the [Seller]'s evidence

- [Buyer]'s opinion

After verification at the court session, the [Buyer] submitted the following opinions on the items of evidence provided by the [Seller]:

   -    The [Buyer] does not object to the authenticity of [Seller]'s evidence items 1 to 8. However, this evidence cannot prove that the [Buyer] delayed in making payment to the [Seller]. It can only prove the contract signing process between the two parties;
 
   -    As to evidence item 9, it is a photocopy and, the [Buyer] has never faxed it to the [Seller]. Therefore, the [Buyer] objects to the authenticity of this evidence;
 
   -    The [Buyer] objects to the authenticity of one account statement in evidence item 10, but admits other materials mentioned therein;
 
   -    The [Buyer] does not object to the authenticity of evidence items 11, 12, 13, and 18. However, they cannot prove the [Seller]'s opinions;
 
   -    The [Buyer] does not object to the authenticity of evidence items 14, 15, and 17;
 
   -    The [Buyer] objects to the authenticity of evidence item 16.

- Positions of L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli

L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli raise no objection to the authenticity of the evidence provided by the [Seller]. However, they allege that this evidence is not relevant to them.

- The Third Party's opinion

The Third Party does not object to the authenticity of the evidence provided by the [Seller].

[Buyer]'s evidence

To support its defense, the [Buyer] submitted the following evidence:

1. The General Agreement entered into by the [Buyer], Xuyang Company, and the Third Party, which indicates that the eight international sales contracts are bound by this agreement and that Xuyang Company is directly responsible for the contract price;

2. Contract 01-C1-367S-W, customs application, import duty payment form, and value added tax payment form, which indicate that the [Buyer] has performed the obligations stipulated in the General Agreement;

3. Contract 01-C1-415S-W, import duty payment form, and value added tax payment form, which indicate that the [Buyer] has performed the obligations stipulated in the General Agreement;

4. Contract 01-C1-440S-W, import duty payment form, and value added tax payment form, which indicate that the [Buyer] has performed the obligations stipulated in the General Agreement;

5. Contract 01-C1-441S-W, import duty payment form, and value added tax payment form, which indicate that the [Buyer] has performed the obligations stipulated in the General Agreement;

6. Contract 01-C1-452S-W, import duty payment form, and value added tax payment form, which indicate that the [Buyer] has performed the obligations stipulated in the General Agreement;

7. Contract 01-C1-462S-W, import duty payment form, and value added tax payment form, which indicate that the [Buyer] has performed the obligations stipulated in the General Agreement;

8. Contract 01-C1-489S-W, import duty payment form, and value added tax payment form, which indicate that the [Buyer] has performed the obligations stipulated in the General Agreement;

9. Contract 01-C1-495S-W, import duty payment form, and value added tax payment form, which indicate that the [Buyer] has performed the obligations stipulated in the General Agreement;

10. The payment notice sent by the Third Party to the [Buyer] on 3 April 2002, which indicates that the Third Party on behalf of the [Seller] has urged the [Buyer] to make the payment;

11. A letter issued by Xuyang Company to the [Buyer] on 8 April 2002, which proves that after receiving the payment notice, the [Buyer] forwarded it to Xuyang Company in time, and Xuyang Company admitted that it failed to make the entire payment to the [Seller];

12. Periodical Paper Production Information newspaper articles, which indicate that Xuyang Company is a distributor of the Third Party in China;

13. Three B/Ls, which indicate that the Third Party was doing business in China on behalf of the [Seller];

14. Photocopies of three business cards, which prove that the Third Party was doing business through the aforesaid three persons;

15. Two faxes, which indicate that during the performance of the General Agreement entered into by the [Buyer], Xuyang Company, and the Third Party, a dispute arose;

16. A statement, which proves that Xuyang Company is __ Group's distributor and that the Third Party provides goods to Xuyang Compnay.

- [Seller]'s opinions on the [Buyer]'s evidence

After the court verified the evidence material submitted by the [Buyer], the [Seller] gave the following opinions:

   -    The [Seller] objects to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence item 1;
 
   -    The [Seller] does not object to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence items 2 to 10. However, they are not relevant to this case;
 
   -    The [Seller] objects to the authenticity and relevance of [Buyer]'s evidence items 11 to 16.

- L Group, Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli's opinions on the [Buyer]'s evidence

L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli submitted the following opinions on the [Buyer]'s evidence:

   -    They object to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence item 1;
 
   -    They do not object to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence items 2 to 11;
 
   -    They object to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence item 12;
 
   -    They have no knowledge of [Buyer]'s evidence item 13;
 
   -    They do not object to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence items 14 and 16. However, they are irrelevant to this evidence;
 
   -    They object to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence item 15;
 
   -    The Third Party objects to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence item 1;
 
   -    The Third Party does not object to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence items 2 to 10;
 
   -    The Third Party objects to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence items 11, 12, 13, and 15;
 
   -    The Third Party does not object to the authenticity of [Buyer]'s evidence item 14;
 
   -    The Third Party does not agree that [Buyer]'s evidence item 16 should be admitted as evidence.

L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli's evidence

In order to support their assertion, L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli submit the following evidence:

1. Xuyang Company's business cancellation application, which proves the time of cancellation;

2. The receipt issued by Shanghai Tianma Private Economic Zone Business Office, which proves that Xuyang Company has turned over its entire business material, including the company's seal;

3. Luo, Yunli's signature, which proves that signature in the contract provided by the [Seller] was forged.

4. Xi, Jingfang's signature, which proves that her signature in the business material indicating that she would be responsible for the debt and credit of Xuyang Company after cancellation is forged;

The [Seller], the [Buyer], and the Third Party's opinions on the aforesaid evidence:

   -    The [Seller] does not object to the authenticity of the aforesaid evidence items 1 and 2, but denies the authenticity of evidence items 3 and 4;
 
   -    The [Buyer] raises no objection to the authenticity and content of the aforesaid evidence;
 
   -    The Third Party does not object to the authenticity of the aforesaid evidence items 1 and 2, but denies the authenticity of evidence items 3 and 4.

The Third Party's evidence

To support its allegation, the Third Party submits the consulting service agreement signed by the Third Party and the [Seller] on 1 October 1999, which is alleged to prove that the Third Party only provides supplementary service, and that it has no right to represent the [Seller] to conduct essential business activities unless otherwise authorized.

The [Seller], the [Buyer], L Group, Xi, Jingfang, Luo, Yunli do not object to the authenticity of the evidence provided by the Third Party.

THE COURT'S RULING ON AUTHENTICITY OF EVIDENCE

Based on the parties' verification opinions, and after examining the evidence material, this court ascertained that:

For the [Seller]'s evidence:

   -    As to [Seller]'s evidence item 9, since it is a photocopy without any supporting evidence, the court does not sustain the authenticity of this evidence;
 
   -    As to [Seller]'s evidence item 16, since the Third Party has confirmed this evidence, the court sustains the authenticity of this evidence;
 
   -   The court sustains the authenticity of other evidence provided by the [Seller].

For the [Buyer]'s evidence:

   -    As to [Buyer]'s evidence item 1, since it is a photocopy without any supporting evidence, the court does not sustain its authenticity;
 
   -    As to [Buyer]'s evidence item 12, i.e., the Paper Production Information, since the [Buyer] failed to provide the original newspaper, and there is no seal of the company which provided this copy, so the court does not sustain the authenticity of this evidence;
 
   -    As to [Buyer]'s evidence item 13, i.e., the B/L, since the seal on it was __ (Hong Kong) Company, the court deems that this evidence has no connection with this case;
 
   -    As to [Buyer]'s evidence item 15, the date indicated on the left side of the fax was 16 October 2002. However, the dates indicated in the fax were 18 October 2001 and 29 October 2001, and there is no other supporting evidence. Therefore, this court does not sustain the authenticity of this evidence;
 
   - The court sustains the authenticity of the other evidence provided by the [Buyer].

For the evidence provided by L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli:

The court sustains the authenticity of evidence items 1 and 2 provided by L Group, Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli, but denies the authenticity of evidence items 3 and 4.

For the evidence provided by the Third Party:

The court sustains the authenticity of the evidence provided by the Third Party.

THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT

Based on the evidence provided by the parties and the court session, the court ascertains the following facts:

On 19 July, 22 August, 5 September, 17 September, and 11 October 2001, respectively, the [Seller] and the [Buyer] signed eight international sales of goods contracts with the contract numbers of:

   -    01-C1-367S-W (loading date: by 31 July 2001);
   -    01-C1-415S-W (loading date: by 31 August 2001);
   -    01-C1-440S-W (loading date: by 30 September 2001);
   -    01-C1-441S-W (loading date: 30 September 2001);
   -    01-C1-452S-W (loading date: by 30 September 2001);
   -    01-C1-462S-W (loading date: by 30 September 2001);
   -    01-C1-489S-W (loading date: by 30 October 2001);
   -    01-C1-495S-W (loading date: by 30 October 2001).

The prices for the aforesaid eight contracts were US $1,020, US $41,495, US $23,724, US $38,965, US $22,760, US $61,347, US $15,858, and US $41,830, respectively, totaling US $246,999.

The payment deadlines for the aforesaid eight contracts were within 85 days of the B/L.

After the conclusion of the aforesaid contracts, the [Seller] delivered the goods as stipulated in the contracts, and the [Buyer] has accepted the goods, filed customs declaration application, and paid the import duty and value added tax. However, the [Buyer] has not made payment to the [Seller].

When filing the customs applications, the [Buyer] mentioned contract numbers 01-C1-367S-W, 01-C1-415S-W, 01-C1-441S-W, 01-C1-462S-W, 01-C1-489S-W, 01-C1-495S-W, and submitted the domestic contract it signed with Xuyang Company corresponding international sales contract numbers.

The Third Party sent a payment notice to the [Buyer] on 3 April 2002, urging the [Buyer] to make payment to the [Seller].

The court also ascertains that the [Seller] signed a consulting service agreement with the Third Party on 1 October 1999, by which the [Seller] entrusted the Third Party to provide consulting service to the [Seller] and to contact the customers and answer their questions by reasonable methods.

In addition, the court ascertains that Xuyang Company was established on 25 November 1998 and, its former legal representative was the defendant Xi, Jingfang. On 22 September 2002, a shareholders meeting was held, at which it was decided to dissolve the company and form a liquidation group with the members of the defendants in this case, Xi, Jingfang (the L Group leader) and Luo, Yunli. On 24 October 2002, the L Group issued a liquidation report, indicating that Xi, Jingfang and Luo, Yunli shall be responsible for the company's debt. On 11 April 2003, the Industry and Commercial Administration Bureau approved Xuyang Company's cancellation application.

Based on Article 29 of the Law of Civil Procedure of the PRC, the addresses of defendants in this case, i.e., the [Buyer], L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli, are all within the jurisdiction of this court, so this court has jurisdiction over this case.

ISSUES PRESENTED AND COURT'S RESOLUTION OF THESE ISSUES

Based on the evidence and the court session, the court holds that the dispute in this case focuses on two issues:

First, whether the [Buyer] was acting as Xuyang Company's agent and, whether the eight contracts in this case have a direct binding effect on Xuyang Company as alleged by the [Buyer];

Second, whether the [Seller]'s claims to have the defendants bear the price for the goods shall be supported.

Determination of applicable law

As to the applicable law, since the places of business of the parties to the eight contracts, the [Buyer] and the [Seller], are in Singapore and China, and both Singapore and China are Contracting States of the CISG, and the parties failed to stipulate the applicable law, therefore, based on Article 1(1) of the CISG, the CISG shall apply to this case.

However, pursuant to Article 4 of the CISG, "[t]his Convention governs only the formation of the contract of sale and the rights and obligations of the seller and the buyer arising from such a contract":

   -    The second issue mentioned above is within the scope of the application of the CISG. Therefore, the CISG shall apply to this issue.
 
   -    But the first issue, the agency issue, is beyond the scope of the CISG. Therefore, the applicable law for it shall be decided based on the rules of private international law. Based on Article 145(2) of the General Rules of Civil Law of the PRC and Article 126(1) of the Contract Law of the PRC, when the parties failed to stipulate the applicable law, the law of the country which has the proximate connection with the contract shall apply .

Resolution of the agency issue

In the instant case, the formation places of the eight international sales contracts, and the domestic contract between the [Buyer] and Xuyang Company, the place of contract performance, and the business places of the [Buyer], Xuyang Company and the Third Party, which related to the establishment of the agent relationship, are all in China, so Chinese law has the proximate connection, and it shall apply to the first issue.

This court held that the [Buyer] failed to prove that it has an international business agency relationship with Xuyang Company. Therefore, the [Seller]'s allegation that the [Buyer] and the Xuyang Company had a sales relationship shall be supported.

To sum up, the [Buyer] failed to prove an agency relationship between the [Buyer] and Xuyang Company, or that the [Seller] was aware of such an agency relationship at the time of the conclusion of the eight contracts. Therefore, based on Article 402 of the Contract Law of the PRC, the [Buyer]'s allegation that the eight contracts have binding effect on Xuyang Company cannot be established.

Resolution of the sales issue

Since the [Buyer] failed to prove that it has made payment to the [Seller], the court confirms the fact that the [Buyer] failed to make payment to the [Seller]. Because the [Buyer] has accepted the contract goods without making payment, based on Article 53 of the CISG, the [Buyer] shall pay the price for the goods under the eight contracts. As to the [Seller]'s claim for the interest on the delayed payment, based on Article 78 of the CISG, when the [Buyer] fails to make payment for the goods, the [Seller] is entitled to interest on it.

JUDGMENT

Based on the above, after the [Seller] delivered the goods, the [Buyer] should have made payment for the goods. Thus, in accordance with Article 24 of the Law of Civil Procedure of the PRC, Article 145(2) of the General Principles of Civil Law of the PRC, Articles 126(1) and 402 of the Contract Law of the PRC, and Articles 53 and 78 of the CISG, the court makes the following award:

  1. [Buyer] shall pay to the [Seller] US $246,999 and interest on it within ten days of the effective date of the award (with the interest calculated based on the US dollar bank loan interest rate of the Bank of China at the same time to the day of actual payment. The interest on:

    -    US $42,515 shall be calculated from 20 November 2001,
    -    US $23,724 shall be calculated from 9 December 2001,
    -    US $38,965 shall be calculated from 8 December 2001,
    -    US $22,760 shall be calculated from 13 December 2001,
    -    US $61,347 shall be calculated from 26 December 2001, and
    -    US $57,688 shall be calculated from 16 January 2002).

  2. The [Seller]'s claims against L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli are dismissed.

The litigation fee of renminbi [RMB] 21,331 shall be borne by the [Buyer].

If it object to this decision, the [Seller] shall file application for appeal with the Shanghai Higher People's Court with copies of the number of parties within 30 days of this award served and L Group, Xi, Jingfang, and Luo, Yunli shall do that within 15 days.

Chief Judge: Li, Yuzhen; Agent Judge: Li, Chun; Agent Judge: Hu, Yongqing

23 March 2004

Clerk: Chen, Yue


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Plaintiff of Singapore is referred to as [Seller], Defendant of Dongling Trade Company of the People's Republic of China is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of the United States (dollars) are indicated as [US $]; amounts in the currency of the People's Republic of China (renminbi) are indicated as [RMB].

** Meihua Xu, LL.M. University of Pittsburgh School of Law on an Alcoa Scholarship. She received her Bachelor of Law degree, with the receipt of Scholarship granted by the Ministry of Education, Japan, from Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. Her focus is on International Business Law and International Business related case study.

*** Zheng Xie, LL.M. Washington University in St. Louis, LL.M., BA in Economics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated May 11, 2010
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography