Scribd
Upload
167 views10 pages

Brief A Case

The dispute was between Thien P Co., who was the buyer, and Nhat H Construction and Trading Co., who was the seller. Thien P signed a contract with Nhat H to purchase lighting sets, paying 30% upfront. However, Nhat H failed to deliver the goods by the deadline and requested changes to the contract. The court ruled that Nhat H must pay an 8% penalty fee of the total contract value to Thien P for breaching the contract, but rejected Thien P's request for 10% of the contract value in legal fees. The court determined the penalty did not exceed the 8% limit under commercial law.

Uploaded by

Mai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
167 views10 pages

Brief A Case

The dispute was between Thien P Co., who was the buyer, and Nhat H Construction and Trading Co., who was the seller. Thien P signed a contract with Nhat H to purchase lighting sets, paying 30% upfront. However, Nhat H failed to deliver the goods by the deadline and requested changes to the contract. The court ruled that Nhat H must pay an 8% penalty fee of the total contract value to Thien P for breaching the contract, but rejected Thien P's request for 10% of the contract value in legal fees. The court determined the penalty did not exceed the 8% limit under commercial law.

Uploaded by

Mai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

BRIEF A CASE

Dispute sales contract


INFORMATION

No. 14/2017/KDTM-ST

Title Dispute sales contract

Date issued July 25th, 2017

Trial level PEOPLE'S COURT OF HAI CHAU DISTRICT - DA NANG CITY

Field: Economy
PARTIES

• The plaintiff is Thien P Co., Ltd. (buyer).


• The defendant is Nhat H Construction and Trading
Co., Ltd. (Seller)
FACTS

- 23/11/2016, Thien P signed a contract with Nhat H to provide Philips lighting sets with a total value of
VND 177,320,000. Thien P must pay 30% of the contract value within 3 days of signing the contract.
-24 / 11/2016: Thien P transferred to Nhat H 30% in advance for the goods
-22/1/2017: deadline for delivery but Nhat H does not ship
-24/1/2017: Nhat H requests to change the type of goods, change the time of delivery, and request Thien P
to continue transferring money.
-13/3/ 2017 Nhat H returned the amount of VND 53,196,000 after Thien P sent a notice
- 27/4/2017 Thien P changed the petition to sue and requested Nhat H to pay VND 31,557,000, of which
legal service costs 10% of the contract value.
ISSUE

Whether Thien P will receive 31,557,000 VND as they requested Nhat H for compensation?
RULING

Answer the issue: No.


*Because:
The court only accepted a request for a contractual violation penalty according to contract No.
31 / HDKT / 2016 made on November 23, 2016 between Thien P and Nhat H with a fine of
8% / total equivalent contract value means 14,185,600 dong. Forced Nhat H must pay
14,185,600 VND to Thien P. If Nhat H does not pay, it will bear the average overdue interest
rate on the market at the time of payment.

Reject the claim for legal service cost of 10% of the contract value agreed by the two parties.
The commercial business charge imposed by Thien P is 3,000,000 VND for this request
REASONING

 With respect to the Court's acceptance of Thien P's request for a penalty for breach of the
contract in accordance with the economic contract No. 31 / HDKT / 2016 dated November
23, 2016 due to sufficient grounds and evidence to determine violated the obligation to
deliver goods in accordance with Article 34.35 of the 2005 Commercial Law.
 For the rejection of the request for lawsuit for legal service costs with the amount of
17,732,000 VND (equivalent to 10% of the contract value due to breach of contract) agreed
by the two parties. Because the maximum penalty of 10% has exceeded the limit (up to 8%)
in accordance with Article 301 Commercial Law 2005, there is no basis to accept this
petition.
REASONING

 According to his judgment on the above situation that Nhat H has to pay a fine for breach of
contract, the Court should give more time limit to pay the above amount to Thien P to make
it easier to determine on deferred payment and interest calculation (in case Nhat H doesn't
pay)
TEAMS MEMBERS

1. Tran Thi Hong Mai (1632300014)


THANK YOU

You might also like