Shanghai company v. Shanghai Consulting Co., LTD. Intermediation contract dispute case

[Case classification] : Contract dispute

[Case date] : May 2009

【 Brief introduction 】

On 5 December 2006, the original told that the defendant had entered into a cooperation agreement with the defendant. In September 2003, the plaintiff company was established, introduced Company A to the defendant, and in October 2003, the defendant and Company A signed a goods supply contract to establish a long-term product export cooperation relationship. The plaintiff claimed commission from the Defendant in accordance with the provisions of the Cooperation Agreement, but the defendant only paid a commission of RMB 23,500 to the Plaintiff on March 4, 2004, and no other commission was paid. According to the terms of the Cooperation Agreement, after deducting the amount of commission already paid, the defendant shall still pay a commission of RMB 227,873.89 to the plaintiff, so the lawsuit requires the defendant in the original trial to pay the above-mentioned commission.

【 Lawyer analysis 】

Regarding the nature of the payment of RMB 23,500 by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, since the purpose stated in the corresponding bank statement of the original defendant was A service fee, the invoice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant was a consulting service fee, and the amount of the fee was in accordance with the commission amount calculated by multiplying the two trade volumes between the Defendant and Company A in 2003 by 2%, The fee represents the corresponding commission paid to the Plaintiff in connection with two identified contracts between Company A and the defendant in 2003.

Regarding the validity of the cooperation agreement between the defendant and Company A in the original trial, the defendant issued the Cooperation Agreement with the official seal to Company A; The defendant paid the plaintiff A commission of 2% as agreed in the agreement, which was accepted by the plaintiff, and the defendant had actually performed the agreement, so the Cooperation Agreement between the defendant and Company A came into effect. Company A certifies that the rights and obligations arising from this Agreement with the Defendant are generally transferred to the plaintiff, so the transfer of the rights obtained by the defendant to the plaintiff by Company A under this Cooperation Agreement is valid.

【 Verdict 】

After lawyer Xue Tianhong's representation, the court finally supported the plaintiff's petition and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff commission.