Welcome to Shanghai Founder Law Firm!   Email:info@gcls.cn  Tel:0086-021-62996116-0

News

Location:Home - News - Typical Case

A company vs. B company

Update time:2018/9/23 17:19:42 Browse times:590
Company a is the goods supplier of company B. the two parties have had business contacts since 2011. On July 15, 2013, the plaintiff urged the defendant to collect the payment for goods in 2012, and the defendant issued a check to the plaintiff, with a face value of XXX yuan. On July 18, when the plaintiff went to the bank to cash the bill, he was refunded on the ground of "reporting loss and stopping payment". Since the communication between the plaintiff and the defendant failed, the plaintiff appealed to the court to require the defendant to bear the bill liability and pay RMB XXX and interest from July 18, 2013 to the actual settlement date. Company B said that the amount of the check invoiced had exceeded the amount payable by the defendant due to the reconciliation error; in addition, the plaintiff's goods had quality problems, so the payment was not paid, and the quality problem was sued separately.
There are two controversial points in this case
First, does the plaintiff enjoy the right of negotiable instruments according to law?
The court held that, according to the purchase order, processing statements, cheques, VAT invoices and the statements of the parties, there was a contractual relationship between the two parties. The plaintiff obtained the bill and paid the consideration. The amount of the bill is more than the actual transaction amount due to the wrong reconciliation claimed by the defendant. However, according to the amount of the bill issued by the defendant for the plaintiff has exceeded the total transaction amount claimed by the defendant, the defendant's claim is not accepted. Therefore, the plaintiff enjoys the right of bill according to law.
Second, is the defense of the defendant refusing to bear the bill liability?
The defendant claimed the quality of the glass, so he did not agree to pay for the goods. Because the defendant failed to provide evidence, he just indicated that he would claim another right. The defendant did not put forward sufficient defense in this case.
The final court decision:
The defendant paid the plaintiff RMB XXX for the bill and paid the interest from July 18, 2013 to the actual settlement date.