This is a fictional hypothetical scenario. It does not represent an actual client, a matter handled by the firm or a result.
Hypothetical · PRC court/arbitration options
01
Scenario & challenge
Story setup (not a real client): An EU home-goods importer signed POs by email with a trading company and paid a large advance. For three months the other side kept saying on WeChat and email that a container was “booked this week” and the B/L was “coming,” but never produced a verifiable vessel voyage or packing list. The buyer’s warehouse sat empty; retail dates were fixed. Worse: the payee name on the bank slips did not fully match the contract header, and chats sometimes named a different factory short-form. Internally the team split — keep waiting, or instruct counsel to terminate and demand repayment. Evidence lived in Outlook, WeChat exports, and bank PDFs; nobody had one chronology.
02
Possible approach
Counsel’s first five moves (illustrative path, not a promised result): (1) one table of every payment, every “we load this week” promise, every delay; (2) public-registry check of the contract entity’s code and status against the payee account; (3) read whether the payment is a deposit or ordinary advance under the contract text, and write the termination/refund bases; (4) bilingual demand letter with a cure deadline and proof of electronic service; (5) map the forum clause — keep talking, mediate, or prepare a filing — and note that without a real B/L and packing list, “goods are on the way” is not performance. Evidence first, then letters, then filing decisions.
03
Limits & uncertainties
The story stops when the parties move into written negotiation with a clearer framework for delivery or repayment. No amounts, no “recovered,” no win/loss. Real matters turn on evidence, solvency, and procedure.