In this case, our team act as the lawyers of plaintiff.
Court: Jinhua Intermediate Court, Zhejiang, P. R. China
The plaintiff's claims:
1. Order confirming the defendant's breach of contract;
2. Order the defendant to return the deposit of 89194.80 dollars twice, i.e. 178389.60 US dollars or equivalent RMB to the plaintiff;
3. The defendant shall bear the litigation costs of the case.
Facts and reasons:
The plaintiff and the defendant have established international trade business relations since 2008, and the defendant has exported RADIATOR products to the plaintiff. The defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff via email on October 17, 2011, informing the plaintiff that in Poland, the procedure to investigate the dumping of Chinese radiator products in Poland is being started. Placing an order before the beginning of June 2012 can avoid the imposition of anti-dumping duties, so as to urge the plaintiff to place an order with the defendant as soon as possible. The two parties signed an international goods sales contract on March 6, 2012 by means of proforma invoice and email communication. Both parties agreed in the contract that the defendant sold 62200 GIO type heat sinks to the plaintiff, a total of 5 40 foot high cabinets; The unit price of radiator is 4.78 USD FOB NINGBO, and the total payment is 297316 USD; The payment method is 30% deposit, and the balance will be paid by telegraphic transfer after receiving the copy of the bill of lading; With regard to the shipping date, both parties agreed on the shipping date arrangement in the second page of the contract, that is, the first container will be shipped on April 1, the second container will be shipped on April 15, the third container will be shipped on April 23, the fourth container will be shipped on May 1, and the fifth container will be shipped on May 13; wait. The defendant signed and sealed the contract. The defendant even promised to deliver the goods ahead of time by telephone. On March 8, 2012, the plaintiff paid 30% of the deposit (DEPOSIT), i.e. USD 89194.80, according to the contract. Before the conclusion of the contract and during the performance of the contract, the plaintiff repeatedly stressed and urged the defendant to arrange production as soon as possible and to deliver the goods as soon as possible and in a timely manner. However, the defendant violated the date of shipment agreed in the contract and delayed shipment. The first and second containers were shipped on April 28, the third on May 11, and the fourth and fifth containers were not shipped on May 1 and 13 according to the date of shipment, Later, both parties terminated the sales contract of the goods in the fourth and fifth containers on May 14. As for the delayed delivery, the defendant explained that it took the defendant one month to improve the spraying production line. The plaintiff was not at fault for the delay. The delay resulted in the first and second containers arriving at the Polish port of destination on May 30, 2012. On May 14, the EU began to impose high anti-dumping duties on the radiator products of China, among which the anti-dumping duty rate of the defendant's products was 56.2%; The tax rate has completely deprived the plaintiff of the profit space for selling the defendant's products, which makes the plaintiff unable to achieve the purpose of the contract, that is, to obtain profits after importing the goods and selling them, and the plaintiff refuses to accept the goods accordingly. However, the plaintiff still tried to help the defendant solve the problem and reduce the loss, and found other customers outside the EU to help the defendant sell the goods of the three containers to others. Specifically, the plaintiff hired an employee who can speak fluent Ukrainian and Russian to promote the goods of the three containers to non EU countries, He has sent two or three hundred emails to potential customers and kept in touch with them before the defendant sold his goods. In addition, the plaintiff applied for a customs bonded warehouse in eastern Poland (and notified the defendant) for the defendant to temporarily store goods free of charge to avoid high demurrage charges (warehousing fees). At the same time, the opening of the customs bonded warehouse enabled the plaintiff to still receive goods and sell goods to non EU countries for profit. Therefore, the plaintiff was prepared to accept goods, but the defendant later sold the goods of the three containers to others. Later, although the plaintiff repeatedly asked the defendant to return 89194.80 dollars, the defendant has not returned it.
Case result: The plaintiff's claims were supported by Court judgement.