Dispute over Melon and Fruit Ordering Resolved Skillfully Through Pre-Litigation Mediation

Weinan Political and Legal Affairs Network (Special Correspondent Li Yong)Recently, the Pre-Litigation Mediation Office of the Huayin City Justice Bureau accepted a typical dispute case arising from melon and fruit ordering. After several efforts, this dispute triggered by the ordering and sale of grapes finally came to a close at the end of the year. Both parties left satisfied, and the case was concluded with the matter fully resolved.

In the early stage of mediation, the two parties each stuck to their own account regarding the grape ordering. The plaintiff sued the defendant in this case for double the return of the deposit, while the defendant stated during the investigation that he would also sue the plaintiff for compensation for the loss from the price difference in grape sales. After investigation, let us now look at the relevant facts of this case.

On August 27, 2017, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a "Red Globe Grape Sales Agreement." The plaintiff paid the defendant a deposit of 5000 yuan, and they agreed on the price and on organizing personnel to pick and load the grapes at that time. During this period, the plaintiff at one point notified the defendant to pick and load the grapes, but after arriving at the orchard found that the grapes could not meet the customer's requirements, so notified the defendant to wait a few more days. However, the defendant was eager to sell the grapes and also felt the originally agreed price was somewhat low, so a dispute arose. The defendant proposed terminating the agreement, and the plaintiff orally agreed and demanded that the defendant return the deposit. However, the defendant argued that when he received the notice to load the grapes he had hired workers to remove the bags and had spent certain expenses, and that the plaintiff had not performed the agreement, so not only would he not refund the money but he also demanded that the plaintiff compensate for the price difference loss. The plaintiff, having no other option, appealed to the court demanding that the defendant return double the deposit. In response, our office, focusing on the points of dispute between the parties and the legal provisions, worked on the defendant first and then the plaintiff several times, clarifying the stakes and distinguishing responsibility. The defendant realized that although the agreement had been signed, both sides had clearly expressed termination of the agreement, and in legal terms the contractual relationship had in substance already been terminated, so the contractual relationship ended, the rights and obligations relationship ended, and the money received should be returned according to law. The plaintiff realized that after notifying the defendant to pick the grapes, the defendant had in fact indeed hired workers and paid remuneration, and therefore voluntarily bore the defendant's bag-removal expenses.

After efforts at coordination, the defendant agreed to the plaintiff's position and voluntarily returned the remaining deposit after deducting the bag-removal expenses. The plaintiff also accepted the defendant's position and no longer pursued other claims. The case was satisfactorily concluded in a harmonious atmosphere.

Legal analysis and reasoning: First, we need to understand the difference between "dingjin" (earnest money) and "dingjin" (advance payment) as well as their legal recognition. As for earnest money and advance payment, their concepts are completely different, and the legal provisions targeting them are also different. Earnest money refers to money or its substitute paid in advance by one party to the other when the contract is concluded or before performance after conclusion, in accordance with legal provisions or the agreement of both parties, in order to ensure performance of the contract, at a certain proportion of the contract subject amount (not exceeding 20%). A contract of earnest money is an accessory contract subordinate to the principal contract, and the prerequisite for its establishment is that the principal contract has already been established and become effective, which in this case is the "Red Globe Grape Sales Agreement." "Advance payment" has no explicit provision in law, and the function it possesses is limited to the nature of prepayment. The "advance payment" that often appears in housing subscription agreements is only unilateral in terms of the owner or compensation, and is the buyer's guarantee to the developer. On the question of whether double return is required if the developer breaches the contract, it is not clear. If the developer breaches the contract, it is sufficient merely to return the advance payment.

In summary, creating a good social atmosphere of learning the law, using the law, and abiding by the law is something every citizen should do. In life we will encounter many situations similar to this case. The key lies in handling them cautiously and carrying out basic civil acts in accordance with legal norms, so as to obtain fair and reasonable civil effects.