Shenzhen Boss Recovers Payment in 4 Months After 18-Month Delay in Goods Payment Litigation — Pursuing 8.6 Million Yuan Contract Payment Relies on This Evidence Chain

In March 2024, Mr. Lin, the owner of an electronic components supplier in Futian, Shenzhen, walked into Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm with a thick stack of account statements. His company had supplied goods worth 8.6 million yuan to a manufacturer in Longhua, with the contract stipulating payment within 60 days of delivery. Yet the other party dragged things out for a full 18 months, going from the initial "we'll settle next month for sure" to eventually not answering phone calls or replying to WeChat messages. Mr. Lin's company's cash flow was on the verge of breaking down, and it had already owed more than 2 million yuan to upstream raw material suppliers.

Mr. Lin initially wanted to take a shortcut by approaching the other party's boss directly for an "in-person negotiation," but was dismissed with a single line: "The company has no money in its account." He then tried sending a lawyer's letter, only to wait a month without receiving any reply from the other party. By the time Mr. Lin came to Zhiming Law Firm with his last glimmer of hope, a full 540 days had passed since the first payment became overdue. He repeatedly asked the lead attorney, Shen Jinlong: "How long will a lawsuit actually take? Are the delivery notes and chat records I have in hand enough to get the court to rule in my favor?"
After the Zhiming Law Firm team stepped in, their first move was not to rush into filing a lawsuit, but to conduct an asset trace. Through a search of corporate registry records, they found that the opposing company's business address in Longhua was already vacant, and the legal representative had been changed to a 70-year-old just three months prior. The bank account statements under that name showed that, two weeks before the litigation, two transfers totaling 3 million RMB had been moved to a related company's account. This series of actions points to one clear fact: the opposing party is preparing to evade enforcement.
Article 577 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Where a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or its performance fails to conform to the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses." Senior Partner Lawyer Shen Jinlong analyzed that the supply contract signed between Mr. Lin and the other party is legally valid and effective, and the statement of account bears the signature and seal of the other party's financial personnel, with delivery documents and VAT invoices corresponding one-to-one. However, the key risk lies in the fact that—if the other party completes the transfer and relocation of assets, Mr. Lin may face a hollow judgment situation of "difficulty in enforcement" even if he wins the lawsuit.
Question: A supplier is owed payment for goods, but only has delivery notes and no contract. What are the chances of winning a lawsuit?
Answer: Delivery notes, settlement statements, and even WeChat chat records can all serve as evidence, but the court will examine whether these materials can form a complete "chain of evidence." Scattered delivery notes alone cannot prove that both parties reached an agreement on the payment deadline. A more reliable approach is to supplement the evidence by signing a Reconciliation Statement or a Repayment Promise before filing the lawsuit, so as to solidify the total amount of goods, the due date for payment, and the overdue interest. In Shenzhen courts hearing such sales contract disputes, when the evidence is complete, the success rate is typically above 85%; however, when the evidence has defects, the mere process of presenting evidence and cross-examination may consume an additional 3 to 6 months.
Mr. Lin's situation is precisely the type where the evidence is relatively complete, but the time limit is urgent. The Zhiming team devised a three-step strategy:
First, immediately apply to the Shenzhen Futian District People's Court for pre-litigation property preservation, freezing the remaining 5.6 million yuan in deposits and two real estate properties in the opposing party's accounts. This step must be done quickly, as the court is required to issue a ruling on the preservation application within 48 hours. The team completed the submission of all preservation materials on the fifth day after taking over the case.
Second, initiate litigation proceedings simultaneously. Mr. Lin had originally expected to pay hundreds of thousands in litigation fees, but Attorney Shen's team helped him apply for a deferred payment under the Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees, minimizing the upfront cash flow pressure.
Third, formulate a contingency plan in advance for the quality objections the opposing party may raise. The opposing party has never raised any written objection to the quality of the goods, but during the trial, they may very well use this as a reason to refuse payment. The Zhiming team guided Mr. Lin to compile 12 records from the email correspondence confirming that the opposing party had approved the products as qualified, completely shutting down this avenue of defense.
After the case was filed with the Futian District People's Court, the defendant, as expected, filed a counterclaim alleging product quality defects, seeking damages as high as 1.8 million yuan. At the same time, the defendant raised a jurisdictional objection in an attempt to delay proceedings. Such tactics are not uncommon in commercial disputes in Shenzhen — the first-instance jurisdictional objection can delay the case by 1 to 2 months, and the counterclaim can further extend the trial cycle.
The Zhiming team was well prepared. Lead Attorney Shen Jinlong presented a key piece of evidence during the court hearing: during the supply period, Mr. Lin had cooperated with the opposing party in completing seven rounds of product technical rectifications, and each confirmation document after rectification bore the signature of the opposing party's quality control supervisor. This evidence directly proved to the court that the opposing party had never raised any quality objections throughout the one-year cooperation period, and the claim of "quality non-conformity" in the counterclaim contradicted the objective facts.
On the 52nd day after applying for property preservation, the defendant proactively proposed a settlement. At that time, the defendant's bank accounts were frozen, the company's invoicing functions were blocked, and upstream and downstream supply chain partners had begun pressing for debt repayment. The mediation plan was ultimately determined as follows: the defendant would pay the 8.6 million yuan principal and 170,000 yuan overdue interest in two installments, and Mr. Lin agreed to lift the freeze on the defendant's accounts. From case filing to receipt of the first installment of 5.2 million yuan, the entire process took only four months, at least two months faster than the average adjudication cycle for similar cases in Shenzhen.
Question: The litigation cycle for contract disputes is too long, is there a way to make the defendant voluntarily pay money?
Answer: An effective strategy is "facilitating negotiation through preservation measures" — filing the case while simultaneously applying to freeze the opposing party's basic bank account, WeChat Pay, and Alipay accounts. Once a company's accounts are frozen, its daily operations and employee payroll are immediately disrupted, and the vast majority of defendants will proactively request mediation. Shenzhen courts adopt a "quick review and quick ruling" approach for preservation applications, issuing rulings within 48 hours for cases with complete documentation. Compared with waiting until judgment and then applying for enforcement, preservation measures can often facilitate settlement within 15 to 45 days, increasing the speed of capital recovery by more than threefold.
After the first payment of 5.2 million arrived, Mr. Lin's anxiety was partially relieved. However, Lawyer Shen reminded him that the remaining 3.4 million would be due in two months, and during this period, they could not afford to let their guard down regarding the opposing party's movements. Sure enough, after making the first installment payment, the defendant attempted to sell a piece of production equipment worth 850,000 under the company's name at a second-hand price. After querying the equipment's registration information through the court enforcement system, the Zhiming team immediately submitted a "Property Disposal Objection Letter" to the presiding judge, preventing this low-price transfer.
Many parties do not pay attention to this detail. After winning a contract dispute, if the defendant is a company, its asset situation can change at any time. From the judgment taking effect to the application for compulsory enforcement, there is often a 30-day performance period in between, and some defendant companies in Shenzhen will rush to transfer assets during this window. Zhi Ming's approach is to directly stipulate a breach clause in the mediation agreement—if the defendant fails to pay the full amount on time, the plaintiff has the right to apply for compulsory enforcement of the entire unpaid amount and claim liquidated damages at 0.05% per day. This binding force led the defendant to proactively transfer 3.4 million yuan to Mr. Lin's account three days before the second payment deadline.
First, every communication during contract performance must be documented. Do not delete the original records of WeChat chats, as the judge will verify the original messages on your phone during the court hearing. Mr. Lin was able to win largely because of the complete set of delivery receipts and WeChat confirmation records he had preserved over three years, totaling 437 items.
Second, payment must be followed by invoicing, and once an invoice is issued, acknowledgment of receipt must be confirmed. Invoices are important evidence for asserting accounts receivable. Many Shenzhen enterprises neglect the invoice receipt confirmation step, allowing the other party to delay payment on the grounds of "not having received the invoice."
Third, once you discover the other party is more than 90 days overdue, do not keep waiting. Shenzhen Futian and Nanshan courts implement "pre-litigation mediation" at the case filing stage. If mediation fails, the case will quickly convert to formal filing, and the overall timeline is not much longer than negotiation. On the contrary, if you delay for more than half a year, the enforcement risk caused by changes in the other party's asset situation will rise sharply. Managing Attorney Shen Jinlong has handled over a hundred corporate debt disputes in Shenzhen, and his deepest insight is: the timing of professional attorney involvement often determines the final direction of the case. The money isn't lost because it was owed—it's lost because it was waited on.
If you are facing a similar issue, you can visit Room 1802, Building A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shixia North 2nd Street, Futian District, Shenzhen. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm offers free in-person consultations every Wednesday afternoon. Tel: 0755-25986969. It is recommended to bring your existing contracts and receipts so that the evidence can be assessed before deciding whether to pursue litigation or negotiation.