Lawyer David Li completely won the case of the dispute over the goods import contract

In January 2019, a Nanjing company purchased polyethylene raw materials from the United States and sold them to a Shandong company. There is no definite stipulation in the contract for the testing conditions of the goods. After the goods had arrived at the port, the Shandong company complained that the quality did not conform to the agreement, and the negotiation failed. In October 2019, the Shandong company sued the Nanjing company, its affiliated companies, and shareholders to the People's Court of Pudong New Area in Shanghai, claiming that the purpose of the contract has been frustrated, and demanded to return the total payment of 3.23 million yuan and compensate for the economic loss.

In April 2020, the Nanjing company and three other defendants entrusted Lawyer Li to respond to the lawsuit, and Lawyer Li timely sorted out and submitted evidence materials to the court. At the first hearing in May, Lawyer Li applied for inspection and judicial authentication of the goods, asking for confirmation of the quality and quantity of the goods and re-inspection according to the test conditions (190℃, 2.16kg). During the trial, Lawyer Li focused on the fact that in the absence of agreed testing conditions, Shandong company could not prove that the testing conditions were 5KG, while the testing conditions should be 2.16KG according to the evidence of the foreign supplier. The salesman misunderstands the test conditions, but this fact should not be regarded as self-admission. In July 2020, under the organization of the court, both parties went to the site to check and found that most of the goods were stored in the open air, and a few of the pallets stored indoors had been unpacked. The quantity of spot check of Nanjing company is about 330 tons, and that of Shandong company is 360 tons. At the next hearing, Lawyer Li grasped the fact that more than 100 tons of the goods had been actually used, stating that the quality was no problem, otherwise the goods could not be used.

The first-instance court ruled that the Shandong company failed to provide evidence to prove that the goods involved did not conform to the quality agreement and thus the purpose of the contract had been frustrated, and rejected all its claims. After the appeal by the Shandong company and the trial by the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court in December 2020, the court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance, holding that the facts ascertained by the court of first instance were clear and the application of law was correct.

Thanks to Lawyer Li’s efforts in the case, after more than 1 year, both the courts of first instance and second instance rejected the plaintiff's request for return of goods and compensation. Lawyer Li won a complete victory for the four defendants.