Oct 1, 2026 · 12 min · 6 segments
When doing business, most businesses spend a lot of time looking for customers, negotiating prices and expanding markets. However, not all businesses pay commensurate attention to contract development…
Summary of the judgment.
Judgment No.
Ten twenty twenty-fifth KDTMPT, dated June nineteenth, twenty twenty-five of the High People's Court in Da Nang resolved a dispute over a goods sale contract between joint stock company D One and Hydropower Construction Company Limited L Two, China, concerning a contract to supply electromechanical equipment for the D One hydropower project, valued at more than two point one six million US dollars.
Under the contract, Company L Two was obligated to supply the equipment and the technical documentation needed for acceptance testing.
However, for the second shipment, the seller delivered the goods more than a year behind the committed schedule, repeatedly delivered incomplete equipment, and failed to provide the full set of technical drawings despite the buyer's repeated requests for supplementation.
As a result, Company D One was unable to carry out acceptance testing, installation, and commissioning of the plant as planned.
After repeated reminders yielded no results, on January twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-four, Company D One unilaterally terminated the contract and demanded the return of the amount already paid for the second shipment.
The court determined that Company L Two had seriously breached its obligations to deliver the goods and to provide the technical documentation under the contract, causing the purpose of entering into the contract to be defeated.
Accordingly, Company D One's unilateral termination of the contract was well-founded under Article four hundred twenty-eight of the Civil Code of twenty fifteen.
The court declared the contract and the letter of credit terminated, ordered Company L Two to return to Company D One the sum of one hundred seventy point six zero zero US dollars, equivalent to four point one five one billion Vietnamese dong, and to take back the entire second shipment.
At the same time, the court rejected all of Company L Two's counterclaims regarding payment of the remaining value of the shipment, the extension of the letter of credit, and continued performance of the contract.
At the appellate level, the High People's Court in Da Nang rejected all of Company L Two's appeals and upheld the first instance judgment.
Summary of the judgment.
Judgment No.
Ten twenty twenty-fifth KDTMPT, dated June nineteenth, twenty twenty-five of the High People's Court in Da Nang resolved a dispute over a goods sale contract between joint stock company D One and Hydropower Construction Company Limited L Two, China, concerning a contract to supply electromechanical equipment for the D One hydropower project, valued at more than two point one six million US dollars.
Under the contract, Company L Two was obligated to supply the equipment and the technical documentation needed for acceptance testing.
However, for the second shipment, the seller delivered the goods more than a year behind the committed schedule, repeatedly delivered incomplete equipment, and failed to provide the full set of technical drawings despite the buyer's repeated requests for supplementation.
As a result, Company D One was unable to carry out acceptance testing, installation, and commissioning of the plant as planned.
After repeated reminders yielded no results, on January twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-four, Company D One unilaterally terminated the contract and demanded the return of the amount already paid for the second shipment.
The court determined that Company L Two had seriously breached its obligations to deliver the goods and to provide the technical documentation under the contract, causing the purpose of entering into the contract to be defeated.
Accordingly, Company D One's unilateral termination of the contract was well-founded under Article four hundred twenty-eight of the Civil Code of twenty fifteen.
The court declared the contract and the letter of credit terminated, ordered Company L Two to return to Company D One the sum of one hundred seventy point six zero zero US dollars, equivalent to four point one five one billion Vietnamese dong, and to take back the entire second shipment.
At the same time, the court rejected all of Company L Two's counterclaims regarding payment of the remaining value of the shipment, the extension of the letter of credit, and continued performance of the contract.
At the appellate level, the High People's Court in Da Nang rejected all of Company L Two's appeals and upheld the first instance judgment.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.