Winning a million-dollar lawsuit with ease, mindset guidance becomes key.
[Supervising Lawyer: Zhiming Lawyer, Handling Lawyer: Cao Guanghui]
In March 2010, Shenzhen Shenyue Optoelectronics Company began supplying touch screens to Hoen Electronics Technology Company. However, from October 2013 to the end of 2013, Hoen Electronics accumulated overdue payments totaling 1.75 million RMB. After multiple rounds of negotiations, Hoen Electronics consistently refused to repay the debt. Left with no alternative, Shenyue Optoelectronics Company entrusted lawyers from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, along with assistant lawyer Cao Guanghui, to represent the case.
Although Haoen Electronics had raised various defenses, such as the plaintiff's failure to issue VAT invoices, substandard product quality, and delayed delivery, in an attempt to confuse the issues, Zhiming lawyers held that the defendant failed to provide evidence proving that issuing invoices was a prerequisite for payment, and that the rights and obligations of both parties should be determined according to the original terms of the contract. Furthermore, the defendant did not provide evidence to prove the plaintiff's alleged breaches, including failure to issue VAT invoices, substandard product quality, and delayed delivery, so the defendant's defenses were not accepted. At the same time, Zhiming lawyers actively guided the judge's reasoning, directly focusing the case on the contractual agreement between the parties, simplifying the complex facts into the principle of "repaying debts is only natural." Ultimately, the court was not misled by Haoen Electronics' defenses and ruled that the defendant, Haoen Electronics, must pay the plaintiff, Shenyue Optoelectronics, RMB 1.766 million for the goods, plus accumulated late payment interest of RMB 830,000.
This case is a typical payment dispute arising from a contract for sale, which is a relatively common type of litigation in legal practice. However, in such lawsuits, the attorney must not only present the facts, evidence, and arguments on behalf of the client but also actively guide the judge's logical reasoning during courtroom debate, helping the judge understand the attorney's perspective, identify the opposing party's weaknesses, and ultimately secure the judge's agreement or acceptance of the attorney's viewpoint. This ability to steer the judge's logical thinking is an indispensable litigation skill in many sales contract cases and numerous civil and commercial disputes, making it highly worthy of study and emulation by many young lawyers.
