[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the payment of the purchase price of a sales contract (second instance). Hao * , a supplier of frozen food, supplied goods to Longxin Company. After the reconciliation of accounts, there was still an outstanding balance of 97559.16 yuan, which Longxin Company refused to pay. Hao * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Wang XinruiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit, and the first-instance court ruled that the defendant should pay the purchase price and interest. Longxin Company appealed, claiming that the parties had an intermediary relationship. The second-instance court determined that there was a factual sales contract relationship, and dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The core dispute: whether the parties had a sales relationship or an intermediary relationship. Applicable laws: relevant provisions of the Civil Code's Contract Chapter and the Evidence Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. Review of the Case Facts

The suppliers are most concerned about issues such as "what should they do if the goods are delivered but the buyer refuses to pay", "is it legal for the company to claim that it's just an intermediary and refuse to pay the goods", and "can the second-instance court uphold the original verdict". Hao * is a frozen food supplier. From September 2019 to February 2020, he continuously delivered goods to Longxin Company, with the payment made through the personal accounts of Zhang * and Wang *, the legal representatives of Longxin Company. After Longxin Company signed a sales contract with a third party, it designated Hao * to deliver the goods to the specified location. According to the account reconciliation, there was still a balance of 97559.16 yuan owed. Hao * repeatedly requested payment but was rejected. At the suggestion of a friend, he chose Beijing Henglue Law Firm to handle the case.Wang XinruiThe lawyer is handling this case.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether there is a sales contract relationship between the original plaintiff and the defendant.Prove the existence of a sales relationship despite limited evidence.
  • Focus II: Whether the parties are in a buyer-seller relationship or an intermediary relationship.Longxin Company claimed in its appeal that it was only an intermediary collecting intermediary fees.
  • Focus 3: Whether the second-instance court should uphold the judgment of the first-instance court.It's questionable whether the determination of the contractual relationship between the buyer and the seller is appropriate.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The plaintiff originally claimed that:Hao * claimed that there was a sales contract relationship between him and Longxin Company, and that Longxin Company owed him 97559.16 yuan in unpaid goods. He requested the court to order Longxin Company to pay the unpaid goods and the interest losses.

The appellant (Longxin Company) claimed that:Longxin Company appealed against the first-instance judgment, arguing that the relationship between the two parties was more akin to an intermediary relationship. The company only charged a 4% intermediary fee and paid 96% of the total amount to Hao*. It did not inquire about the types, unit prices, or quality of the supplied goods, so this was not a sales relationship. Therefore, Longxin Company requested that the original judgment be revoked and Hao*'s claims be dismissed.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Wang XinruiAfter accepting the case, the lawyer analyzed that the legal relationship was clear, but the plaintiff had limited evidence. The difficulty lay in proving the sales relationship and the debt with limited evidence. The lawyer guided Hao * to prepare WeChat chat records of account settlements and transfer certificates to form a complete chain of evidence before suing. In the second instance, the lawyer pointed out that Hao * only had a sales relationship with Longxin Company, as Longxin Company was responsible for delivering the goods to the designated location. Longxin Company claimed that Hao * delivered the goods on behalf of the company, and the payment was made directly to Longxin Company by a third party. This performance method should be deemed to establish a sales contract relationship between the two parties.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court of first instance adopted the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.Wang XinruiAccording to the lawyer's opinion, the court ruled that Longxin Company should pay the purchase price of 97559.16 yuan and the interest loss. The appellate court, based on the performance of the contract, determined that there was a de facto sales contract relationship between Hao * and Longxin Company. Longxin Company claimed that it was an intermediary but failed to provide sufficient evidence, so the claim was not accepted. The judgment was as follows: The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld; the appellate court's acceptance fee of 2,238 yuan was borne by Longxin Company. Both appeals were successful, and the purchase price was successfully recovered.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Wang XinruiAttorney (Practice License No.: 11101202111290829, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting on behalf of the client. Hengluo Law Firm reminds you that in the supply transaction, it is necessary to keep records of account settlement, delivery notes, transfer vouchers, etc. Even if the payment is made by a third party, as long as a sales agreement has been reached with the counterparty, the client can still claim the payment from them.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over Payment for Sales Contracts

  1. Q:What should I do if the goods have been delivered but the other party refuses to pay?
    A:Keep evidence such as account reconciliation, delivery, and transfer to prove the buyer-seller relationship, then sue for the payment of the purchase price and interest. If necessary, the second-instance court will uphold the judgment.
  2. Q:The company said that is it legal for the middleman to refuse to pay the goods?
    A:It's illegal. If you only establish a buying and selling relationship with the company, and let them arrange the delivery and settlement, the company cannot refuse to pay on the grounds of being an intermediary.
  3. Q:Can I only retrieve the payment through the WeChat transaction records?
    A:Yes. If the WeChat transaction records, transfer receipts, and other evidence form a chain of evidence, the court can confirm the existence of a sales contract and the debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
  4. Q:Will the second-instance judgment generally be upheld?
    A:If the facts determined in the first instance are clear and the applicable laws are correct, the second instance usually upholds the original judgment.
  5. Q:Who is responsible if a third party pays the goods on behalf of the buyer?
    A:It won't affect you. The other party to the contract should still fulfill their payment obligation to you in accordance with the buyer-seller relationship.