After receiving the goods, the buyer refuses to pay for the goods with the official seal as "false". The court orders the buyer to pay for the goods
Recently, the Tongzhou Court concluded a case of refusing to pay the purchase price on the grounds of affixing a "fake official seal". The signing of the goods was an act of performing duties, the buyer and the seller formed a de facto sales contract relationship, and the buyer was finally judged to pay 27,400 yuan for the goods.

Company A sued its former partner Company B to the court with a paper of complaint. It was learned that Company B had been in arrears with Company A for two years. Company A can only seek help from the court to resolve the dispute between itself and Company B.

Company A claimed that its main business is paint products. In 2021, it received a call from Li, who claimed to be the legal representative of Company B, claiming to purchase paint. Model, quantity, unit price and delivery location, payment term, etc. Then company A assigned an employee named Xiong to deliver the goods to the place designated by company B. It happened that Li, the legal representative of company B, was out and unable to pick up the goods in person. After a phone call, XX followed the instructions to check the products and signed on the warehousing form made by Company A.

After the expiration of the payment period agreed by both parties, Company B still did not actively fulfill its payment obligations. Subsequently, Company A communicated with Company B several times. Company B claimed that "it needs to pay for the goods after a period of time due to the relatively tight economy, but it can call first." An "IOU". Company A assigned Xiong to go to the residence of Company B to demand the payment of 27,400 yuan. The employee Xiong said that the IOU was prepared in advance. After arriving at Li's office in Company B, Li took out the official seal from the drawer and stamped it On the owed bills, promise to pay the payment as soon as possible.

However, during the following two years of urging for the payment, Company B refused to pay the payment on the grounds that the official seal on the invoice was false, and claimed that there was no sales contract with Company A. Now company A requires company B to pay the full payment of 27,400 yuan.

Company B complained: it disagrees with Company A’s claim, and Company A’s lawsuit is not authentic. The goods receipt submitted by Company A was made unilaterally and did not conform to the form of evidence. The source of the receipt is unknown, and there is no person in charge of Company B Or the signature of the authorized personnel, without the signature and seal of Company B, judging from the content, it is impossible to prove whether the business has occurred. The official seal on the content of the repayment note submitted by Company A is also fake, which is inconsistent with the official seal filed by Company B at the Public Security Bureau. The real situation is that Fang XX, who is at the door, received the goods and deposited them in Company B, and asked Company B It was sold on behalf of the company, so Company A should sue Fang XX.

After the trial, the Tongzhou Court found that Fang XX, the gatekeeper of Company B, was the elder brother of Li XX, the legal representative of Company B. He came to Company B to help guard the gate during the off-season. He didn't know anything about buying and selling paint except signing according to Li's instructions.

Company B recognized the fact that Fang XX was indeed working for his company at that time. As for the official seal on the owed receipt, it has been verified that it is inconsistent with Company B's record seal in the public security organ. After the trial, the court held that the warehousing form submitted by Company A and the witness testimony of Fang XX could prove that Fang XX signed for the goods, and Company B also recognized that Fang XX was an employee of the company, so Fang XX's signature was an act of performing his duties. The company has formed a de facto sales contract relationship with Company B, and Company B should pay the outstanding payment.

In the end, the court ruled that Company B should pay Company A 27,400 yuan within seven days from the effective date of the judgment.

Zhang Xuehua, a lawyer from Beijing Kangda Law Firm, lawyer license number: 11101200510298487, obtained a lawyer's license in 2005, and is good at debt collection, real estate disputes, and corporate legal affairs