Civil Judgment — Zhou** v. UDZ Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.; unpaid media-invitation service fee

Civil Judgment

Plaintiff: Zhou**, female, born on ****-**-**, Manchu ethnicity, registered domicile at **.

Authorized representative: Zhou Qiang, lawyer at Beijing Yikai Law Firm.

Defendant: UDZ Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., domiciled in Chaoyang District, Beijing.

Legal representative: Zhang**.

After accepting the service-contract dispute between the plaintiff, Zhou**, and the defendant, UDZ Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “UDZ Company”), this Court constituted a collegiate panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing under ordinary procedure. Zhou Qiang, the authorized representative of the plaintiff, Zhou**, attended the hearing. The defendant, the UDZ Company, having been lawfully summoned by this Court, failed to appear without a valid reason, and this Court heard the case in its absence in accordance with the law. The proceedings have now concluded.

The plaintiff, Zhou**, alleged that on 1 November 2016 the plaintiff and defendant signed a Service Agreement, under which the defendant company engaged the plaintiff to provide media public-relations and communications services for one month, for a service fee of RMB 25,000. The plaintiff has provided the corresponding services in accordance with that agreement, but the defendant company has still not paid the service fee, despite repeated unsuccessful demands for payment. Accordingly, relying on the agreement’s dispute-jurisdiction clause, the plaintiff brought proceedings in the court at her domicile and requested an order requiring the defendant company to pay her the RMB 25,000 service fee.

Having heard the case, the Court finds that on 1 November 2016 the plaintiff and defendant signed a Service Agreement. It stipulated that during November 2016 the defendant company would engage the plaintiff as a marketing consultant to provide consulting services to its marketing department, with the principal responsibility of providing services in the media public-relations and communications field described as “media invitations for the Huang Xiaoming UDZ brand launch,” namely inviting media to attend the UDZ brand launch on 21 November 2016. The agreement further stipulated a service fee of RMB 25,000, payable by the defendant company before the tenth working day of December 2016. The dispute-resolution clause also stated: “If the parties are unable to resolve any dispute through consultation, either party is entitled to submit the dispute for adjudication to the people’s court at the plaintiff’s domicile.”

During the proceedings, the plaintiff submitted several photographs taken at the UDZ brand launch. They show that a number of media organizations attended the defendant company’s brand launch and interviewed relevant persons. The plaintiff relied on these photographs to establish that she had completed the services agreed in the service agreement.

The Court further finds that, after this Court lawfully served the defendant, the UDZ Company, with a copy of the complaint and the hearing summons by public notice, the defendant failed to appear without a valid reason, and this Court heard the case in its absence in accordance with the law.

The foregoing facts are supported in the record by the Service Agreement, photographs of the defendant company’s brand launch, statements made by the party in court, and other evidence.

This Court considers that a lawfully formed contract is protected by law and legally binding on its parties. The parties shall fully perform their obligations as agreed. A party that fails to perform its contractual obligations, or performs them inconsistently with the agreement, shall bear liability for breach, including continued performance, remedial measures, or compensation for losses.

In this case, the Service Agreement entered into by the plaintiff and defendant expressly sets out their respective rights and obligations. The plaintiff has submitted photographs from the event as evidence that she performed her obligation to invite media to the defendant company’s brand launch, and this Court confirms that performance. The defendant company’s failure to pay the service fee to the plaintiff within the agreed time constitutes a breach of contract and must be remedied. This Court upholds the plaintiff’s claim. By failing to appear without a valid reason, the defendant company voluntarily relinquished its right to present a defense. This Court gives judgment in its absence in accordance with the law, and the resulting adverse consequences shall be borne by the defendant itself.

In conclusion, pursuant to Article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Articles 8, 60 and 107 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, this Court gives judgment as follows:

Within seven days after this judgment takes legal effect, the defendant, UDZ Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., shall pay the plaintiff, Zhou**, a service fee of RMB 25,000.

If the defendant, UDZ Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., does not perform its monetary payment obligation within the period specified in this judgment, it shall, pursuant to Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, pay double interest on the debt for the period of delayed performance.

The case acceptance fee of RMB 425 and the public-notice fee of RMB 560 shall be borne by the defendant, UDZ Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (Both to be paid within seven days after this judgment takes legal effect.)

If dissatisfied with this judgment, a party may, within fifteen days from the date of service of the judgment, submit a notice of appeal to this Court, provide copies according to the number of opposing parties, and pay the appeal case acceptance fee in advance, appealing to the Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court. If the appeal case acceptance fee remains unpaid seven days after expiry of the appeal period, the right to appeal shall be deemed waived.

26 October 2018