Arrears in dealer fees, Mansoureden was enforced!

CBO reporter Li Siyang

Manshoten was sued by the court for defaulting on the payment of more than one million yuan to a distributor in Chengdu, and was recently enforced by the court to 950145 yuan. Previously, Manschuletton had appealed several times but was rejected by the court.

On May 6, according to the China Enforcement Information Disclosure Network, Manxiu Leidun (China) Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. added new executed information, with the subject matter of enforcement exceeding 950,000 yuan, and the enforcement court was the Jinjiang District People's Court of Chengdu City, case number (2022) Chuan 0104 Zhi 4037.

According to the first-instance civil judgment, the plaintiff, Chengdu Mingjia Cosmetics Co., Ltd., and Manxiu Leidun Chengdu Branch had a long-term product distribution relationship, and because Manxiu Leidun Chengdu Branch owed Mingjia Company more than one million yuan in fees, Mingjia Company sued the Jinjiang District People's Court of Chengdu City.

01

Huge amounts of money in arrears have been owed to court for many years

Since 2010, in order to increase sales and seize the market, Manxiu Lei dun Chengdu Branch has required Mingjia Company to open up channels and actively expand the market, including sales below the purchase price, and the resulting cost difference is first paid by Mingjia Company, and then paid by Manxiu Leidun Chengdu Branch to Mingjia Company.

Mingjia Company carried out business activities in accordance with this requirement, and later due to the change in the work of Mao Yang, sales manager of Manxiu Lei dun Chengdu Branch, Manxiu Lei dun Chengdu Branch convened Mingjia Company and its staff Mao Yang, Han Yun, Zhu Yi and Chen Ying to reconcile in their conference room on December 5, 2012, and Mao Yang still retains the voucher signed by Mao Yang to confirm that Manxiu Lei Dun Chengdu Branch owes Mingjia Company 841648.68 yuan in 2011. After Zhang Yu took over as the sales manager of Manxiu Leidun Chengdu Branch, Mingjia Company continued to carry out promotions according to the requirements of Manxiu Leidun Chengdu Branch.

For the above reasons, on October 28, 2020, the plaintiff, Mingjia Company, filed with the court to order Manxiu Leidun Chengdu Branch and Manxiu Leidun Company to pay the 1059883 yuan owed by Mingjia Company, and from August 18, 2014 onwards, pay interest at the same loan interest rate of Chinese Min min bank for the same period until it is paid, and the litigation and the cost of realizing the claim shall be borne by Manxiu Leidun Chengdu Branch and Manxiu Ledun Company.

The defendant Mansuelandan argued that there was no legal and valid proof of the expenses claimed by Mingjia Company, and Mingjia Company could not provide evidence to prove the activities corresponding to the claimed expenses, and the basis of the claimed expenses, and requested the court to reject all of Mingjia Company's litigation claims.

On January 28, 2021, the Jinjiang District People's Court of Chengdu Issued a First Instance Civil Judgment, in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, the defendant Manxiu Leidun (China) Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. shall pay 639902 yuan and bear interest to the plaintiff, Chengdu Mingjia Cosmetics Co., Ltd., within 10 days from the date of legal effect of this judgment (based on the amount still owed, from August 18, 2014), as well as the capital occupation fee (based on 387540.8 yuan, calculated according to the corresponding loan interest rate), and rejected the plaintiff's other claims.

02

Enforced after multiple failed appeals

After the first instance, due to dissatisfaction with the court's judgment, Manxiu Lei dun appealed to the court on August 24, 2021 and November 9, 2021, respectively, requesting to revoke the first item of the civil judgment of Chengdu Jinjiang District People's Court (2020) Chuan 0104 Min Chu No. 9378, and to change the judgment to reject all the litigation claims of Mingjia Company, and the litigation costs were borne by Mingjia Company.

The Mansoreton side held that the facts found in the original judgment were unclear and erroneous, and the application of law was wrong. The 2010-2012 low-priced sales of the 2010-2012 low-price 1301102 yuan supplement claimed by Mingjia Company was borne by Chengdu Branch, but in fact, Mingjia Company did not have purchase vouchers and sales vouchers, so it could not prove that there was a supply and replenishment between the two parties, the distribution relationship between the two parties had no evidence to support, and Mansuredun Company did not allow distributors to sell products at low prices.

Although Zhu Yi, Mao Yang and Zhang Yu were employees of the Guangzhou branch, the first instance found that the three persons acted on behalf of the Chengdu branch, constituted a representation agent, had no evidence to support and were contrary to the facts, and at the same time, the first instance supported that the Alibaba network platform fees in 2014 had no factual basis, the Guangzhou branch had not re-supplied to Mingjia Company since 2013, and their own business activities on Alibaba had nothing to do with the appellants.

On December 8, 2021, the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province issued a second-instance civil judgment, and the appeal requests of Manxiu Ledun Company and Chengdu Branch were not established, and the court did not support them. The first-instance trial procedure is lawful, the facts are clear, the law is correct, and the court upholds it in accordance with law.

On May 6, 2022, the Jinjiang District People's Court of Chengdu City enforced the amount of 950145 yuan against Manxiu Ledun Company through the China Enforcement Information Disclosure Network.

This is not the first time that Manshowredun has been involved in a judicial dispute. According to the official website of Aiqicha, there are 51 relevant judgment documents of Manxiu Leidun Company that can be checked, 5 court announcements, and 26 case filing information.

03

The "pit" dug by the problems left over from history?

"Cosmetics Finance Online" reporter learned from the Agent of Mansourredun that this kind of fee arrears problem was more serious in the early years, and many recent lawsuits are actually historical problems, "Nowadays, large enterprises like Mansureton are unlikely to happen."

"Although there are still many dealers who are in arrears in their fees, most of the disputes arise from cooperation with small brands and small businesses." The above-mentioned agents talked.

He said that the reason for the problem of arrears of fees is related to the frequent turnover of professional managers in many upstream enterprises, and new professional managers often ignore the cost disputes left by their predecessors. "Due to the difficulty of litigation, many dealers can only eat dumb losses when they encounter this situation."

There are also speculations that the environment faced by offline channels and dealers this year is particularly difficult, and this time Manshow Redun was enforced due to the problem of arrears in the early years, which may inspire some dealers to clarify the account problems left behind by the brand side and take legal channels to get back the arrears. "After all, today's more cash flow means that the ability to resist risks is higher."

At present, the overall atmosphere of the industry is developing well, and the treaty of brands in cooperation with channels is more standardized. When cooperating, the two sides should not only pay attention to integrity, but also maintain a good market environment.