Home >

Putian City Licheng District Hongxin Shoe Material Business And Defendant Putian City Special Shoe Co., Ltd. Dispute Of Sale And Purchase Contract Case

2014/5/25 19:58:00 38

plaintiff, Hongxin shoe material company, Licheng District, Putian, residence: Putian, Licheng District, 
 legal representative Lian Qing Rong, manager. 
 attorney Cai Dehuo, lawyer of Fujian ketlan law firm. (special agent) 
 defendant Putian en te Shoes Co., Ltd., domicile: Chengxiang District, Putian. 
 legal representative Li Qiuying, general manager. 
 defendant Chen Mucheng, male, Han nationality, peasant, living in Hanjiang District, Putian. 
 plaintiff, a case of dispute between Putian Putian Licheng District shoe company and defendant Putian special shoe Co., Ltd., a court of appeal was formed in accordance with the law. The plaintiff entrusted the agent Cai Dehuo and defendant Chen Mucheng to take part in the proceedings. The defendant Putian ente Shoes Co., Ltd. was summoned legally by the court without any reason to refuse to appear in court. The case is now terminated. 
 Plaintiff alleged that defendant Chen Mucheng was the salesman of the Putian City special shoe Co. Ltd., in from June 12 to 15, 2009, defendant Chen Mucheng purchased three single shoe materials for plaintiff on the basis of the production needs of Putian special shoe Co., Ltd., valued at 18247 yuan, when the defendant paid 1460 yuan to the plaintiff, and 16787 yuan owed to the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff has repeatedly urged the defendant to pay the loan, but the two defendants are not paying back for reasons such as no money. For this reason, it is requested that the two defendants should be ordered to pay 16787 yuan for the payment of the goods in accordance with the law and compensate for the economic losses caused by the overdue payment to the plaintiff (the interest is calculated on the basis of the interest rate calculated at the same period of the bank's interest rate from the date of the prosecution from the date of the prosecution to the date of repaying). 
 defendant Chen Mucheng argued that he was employed as a salesman in Putian's en te Shoes Co., Ltd. in 2008-2009, during which he performed his duties in accordance with the articles of association of the company. The relevant responsibilities and rights during the work were authorized by the company. The relevant continuation of the plaintiff's arrears was settled by the Putian special shoe Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff was only related to the Putian special shoe Co., Ltd. 
 defendant Putian ent shoe industry Co., Ltd. did not reply. 
 in the process of trial, the plaintiff submitted the following evidence to his proposal in the time limit of proof: 1, the plaintiff's business license and organization code certificate, to prove the plaintiff's qualification and identity matters. 2, the industrial and commercial registration form of the defendant's company and one of the defendant's Chen Mucheng identity cards, to prove the main qualifications and identity matters of the two defendants. 3, Hongxin shoe material business receipts received three copies (number: 0000974, 0000948, 0000933), proving that defendant Chen Mucheng bought the three single shoe material value of RMB 18247 yuan with the salesman of the company in from June 12 to 15, 2009, and has already paid 1460, but still owed the goods 16787 yuan. 
 the evidence provided by the plaintiff is not challenged by the defendant's cross examination. 
 our hospital considers that the defendant's Putian special shoe Co., Ltd. did not appear in court to participate in the proceedings and did not submit any objection and submit evidence in writing. It was deemed to be an automatic waiver of the litigation rights. The evidence provided by the plaintiff was authentic, legal and effective, and the Court confirmed it in accordance with the law. 
 defendant Chen Mucheng submitted the following evidence to his proposal in the time limit of proof specified in this hospital: 1, one identity card, to prove his personal identity. 2. A copy of < < a href= > //www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > > < /a > issued by defendant Putian ent Shoe Co. Ltd. proves that it is a salesperson hired by the company. 
 the evidence provided by defendant Chen Mucheng is not disputed by the plaintiff after cross examination. 
< evidence and certification by court. The court finds that the facts of the case are as follows: defendant Chen Mucheng is a salesperson of the Putian City special shoe industry Co., Ltd., from June 12, 2009 to June 15th, the defendant Putian ent Shoe Co., Ltd. purchased three single shoe materials for the plaintiff, worth 18247 yuan, and the defendant Chen Mucheng signed the receipt in the plaintiff's receipt. The defendant has paid the plaintiff 1460 yuan, and the amount owed is 16787 yuan. Since then, the plaintiff has failed to make repeated charges, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in January 29, 2010. 
 above all, the hospital believes that the transaction between the original defendant and the defendant is less than a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp" > the relationship facts are < /a > clear and the evidence is sufficient. The defendant has purchased the shoes materials for plaintiff, and the plaintiff's total amount of goods is RMB 16787 yuan, and the defendant should perform the obligation to pay the goods. Now the plaintiff asks the defendant to repay the money, the court should support it. Chen Mucheng, the defendant, signed the receipts in the receipts to confirm that the Department had performed its duties. The plaintiff asked the defendant Chen Mucheng to jointly repay the loan. The reason was not valid and the court did not support it. Accordingly, according to the 108th provisions of the general law of the people's Republic of China, 114th articles and 159th articles of the People's Republic of China contract law, and 130th provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: 
 defendant Putian City special shoe industry Co., Ltd. shall pay the plaintiff 16787 yuan for the Hongxin shoe material business in Putian Licheng District within ten days from the date when the judgment comes into force and pay the interest calculated from the bank lending rate at the same time issued by the people's Bank of China from January 29, 2010 to the date of repayment. 
 the acceptance fee of this case is RMB 220 yuan, which is borne by the defendant, Putian's a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp" > shoe industry < /a > limited liability company. 
If P fails to fulfill the obligation of paying money according to the period specified in this judgment, the debt interest of the period of delay in performance shall be doubled according to the 229th provision of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China. 
 the deadline for application is two years. 
 if you refuse to accept this judgment, you may submit the petition to the court within fifteen days from the date of the judgment, and submit a copy according to the number of the other party, and appeal to the intermediate people's Court of Putian, Fujian.