金颖波

浙江国商实业股份有限公司诉江苏东洋之花化妆品有限责任公司为买卖合同纠纷一案，原告不服一审法院的判决，拟提起上诉。经该公司大股东台州市国有资产经营有限公司的介绍，要求本人作为其上诉的代理人提起上诉并参加二审的代理工作。经过本人对该案基本情况及有关资料的充分分析和研究，提出了与一审律师不同的代理观点，本案二审法院对双方争议的大客户政策的处理采纳了代理人的意见，对一审进行了改判，较好地维护了当事人的权益。

案情介绍

原告与被告于2001年4月1日订立了由原告经销被告“东洋之花”系列产品的协议书一份，协议主要约定了协议期及区域、基本任务、总量返利、速度返利、铺底额度等主要条款。协议订立后，原被告双方均按约进行了履行。在协议期限内的2001年8月3日，被告向全国的经销商发出了“2001年秋季全国大客户政策”，规定凡于8月10之前向该公司指定帐户一次性打款满50万元（现汇），返利3%，满100万元返5%，满150万元返7%；于8月31日之前向该公司指定帐户一次性打款满50万元（现汇），返利2%，满100万元返3%，满150万元返5%。收到该公司文件后，原告分二次打入了150万元，其中第一次以现汇方式打入70万元，第二次在8月16日以银行承兑汇票方式打入80万元。

原被告双方合作期限届满后，被告向原告发出了一份商务联系函，该函对双方合作中的有关内容包括总发货、总付款、原告150万元大额户政策的返利、总量及速度返利及其他事项进行了说明。由于原告公司原法律顾问的疏忽和方式的错误，对本该认可的商务联系函进行了拒绝异议，导致原被告双方纠纷的发生，虽然经原告法定代表人的努力，对退货部分进行了协商挽救，但对于原本被告所给予原告的有关优惠政策被告不再给予，以致原告不得不诉至法院要求进行处理。

一审法院的处理意见

一审法院经审理认为：根据被告实行的大客户政策，在2001年8月10日前一次性现汇50万元返利3%，满150万元返利7%。而原告在2001年8月10日通过银行汇款70万元，使用银行承兑汇票付款80万元，根据中国人民银行颁布的《支付结算办法》的规定，使用票据与汇兑属不同的支付结算办法，故原告要求按付款150万元享受7%的返利不能成立，原告仅享得70万元按3%的返利即21000元。

二审律师代理意见

根据本案的证据和有关对现汇的理解及被告所发出的大客户政策的文件的格式，代理人提出了以下的观点：

1、大客户政策的通知系被告向其全国的所有经销商所发出的希望与其订立合同的意思表示，在性质上为要约，一经为对方所接受即为承诺，则合同成立。因此在原告按该通知行使了通知规定的行为后，被告即应当按该通知的规定履行给付优惠政策的义务。本案中虽然原告对商务联系函作出了异议的意思表示，但该大客户政策是一项独立的合约，应当对双方当事人有约束力，双方均应遵守执行。

2、同时由于该大客户政策是由被告单方事先所拟定，未与对方当事人协商的合同，属于合同法规定的格式合同，在当事人对该合同条款发生理解不一的情况下应当按通常理解予以解释；在有二种以上解释的情况下，应作出不利于提供格式合同一方的解释。本案中当事人双方对现汇的理解明显存在着差异，被告认为均为现款，而原告认为现汇并非是现款，原告所提供的承兑汇票也为现汇之一；同时被告的格式合同中也仅对50万元明确注明要求现汇，对100万元和150万元并未注明要求。因此对100万元和150万元是否适用现汇的理解应当作出对原告有利的理解。

3、虽然商务联系函由于原告的异议未发生约束力，但不可否认，该商务联系函是对双方合作过程中的有关事实的综合归纳，是本案的证据之一。该商务联系函对原告150万元的汇款作出了认可并承诺给予优惠政策，因此，根据该证据的表示，也应当认定原告在规定时间内给付了150万元的款项。

综上原告应当享受150万元75000元的返利优惠。

二审法院的判决

二审判决认为由于大客户政策中的付款方式括注为“现汇”，属指称不明，因为“现汇”是国际金融领域使用的专业术语。在约定不明的情况下，被告称执行大客户政策所支付的货款必须是现款，没有充分的理由，被告发给原告的商务联系函中的大客户政策返利计算也是以收到原告150万元作为计算依据的，可见被告已承认在规定期限内收到该150万元货款，因此应当给予原告返利75000元；同时导致总量返利、速度返利少算也应纠正，为此作出了改判，支持了原告的诉请。 

Jin Yingbo

The plaintiff in the case of Zhejiang Guoshang Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Dongyangzhihua Cosmetics Co., Ltd. in dispute over a sales contract is not satisfied with the judgment of the first instance court and intends to file an appeal. Upon the introduction of the major shareholder of the company, Taizhou State owned Assets Management Co., Ltd., I am requested to file an appeal as its agent and participate in the agency work of the second instance. After thorough analysis and research of the basic situation and relevant materials of the case, I have proposed a different perspective from the first instance lawyer on agency. The second instance court in this case adopted the opinions of the agent in handling the disputed major client policy between the two parties, and revised the judgment of the first instance, effectively safeguarding the rights and interests of the parties.

Case introduction 

The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement on April 1, 2001, for the distribution of the defendant's "Dongyang Flower" series products by the plaintiff. The agreement mainly stipulated the terms and conditions of the agreement, including the period and region, basic tasks, total rebate, speed rebate, and initial quota. After the agreement was signed, both the plaintiff and defendant fulfilled their obligations as agreed. On August 3, 2001, during the term of the agreement, the defendant issued the "National Key Customer Policy for the Autumn of 2001" to distributors nationwide, stipulating that if a one-time payment of 500000 yuan (in cash) is made to a designated account of the company before August 10, a rebate of 3% will be given, a rebate of 5% will be given if the payment exceeds 1 million yuan, and a rebate of 7% will be given if the payment exceeds 1.5 million yuan; Make a one-time payment of 500000 yuan (in cash) to the designated account of the company before August 31st, with a rebate of 2%. If the payment exceeds 1 million yuan, a rebate of 3% will be refunded, and if the payment exceeds 1.5 million yuan, a rebate of 5% will be refunded. After receiving the company's documents, the plaintiff paid 1.5 million yuan in two installments, including the first installment of 700000 yuan in cash and the second installment of 800000 yuan in bank acceptance on August 16th.

After the expiration of the cooperation period between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant issued a business contact letter to the plaintiff, which explained the relevant contents of the cooperation between the two parties, including total shipment, total payment, rebates for the plaintiff's 1.5 million yuan large account policy, total and speed rebates, and other matters. Due to the negligence and mistake of the original legal advisor of the plaintiff company, they refused to object to the business contact letter that should have been recognized, leading to the occurrence of a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. Although the plaintiff's legal representative made efforts to negotiate and save the return part, the defendant no longer granted the relevant preferential policies given to the plaintiff by the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff having to appeal to the court for resolution.

The handling opinion of the first instance court

The court of first instance held that, according to the defendant's policy of large clients, a one-time cash exchange rebate of 500000 yuan was 3% before August 10, 2001, and a rebate of 7% when the amount reached 1.5 million yuan. On August 10, 2001, the plaintiff made a bank remittance of 700000 yuan and paid 800000 yuan using a bank acceptance bill. According to the "Payment and Settlement Measures" issued by the People's Bank of China, the use of bills and exchange is a different payment and settlement method. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for a 7% rebate of 1.5 million yuan for payment cannot be established. The plaintiff only enjoyed a 3% rebate of 700000 yuan, which is 21000 yuan.

Second instance lawyer's proxy opinion

Based on the evidence of this case and the understanding of cash exchange and the format of the documents issued by the defendant regarding the policy of major clients, the agent proposed the following views:

1. The notice of major customer policy is the defendant's intention to sign a contract with all its distributors nationwide, which is an offer in nature. Once accepted by the other party, it constitutes an acceptance, and the contract is established. Therefore, after the plaintiff exercises the actions specified in the notice, the defendant shall fulfill the obligation to pay preferential policies in accordance with the provisions of the notice. Although the plaintiff expressed objections to the business contact letter in this case, the major client policy is an independent contract that should be binding on both parties, and both parties should abide by and implement it.

2. At the same time, due to the fact that the major customer policy was drafted by the defendant in advance and was not negotiated with the other party, it belongs to the format contract stipulated in the Contract Law. In the event of a disagreement between the parties regarding the terms of the contract, it should be interpreted according to their usual understanding; In cases where there are two or more interpretations, an interpretation unfavorable to the party providing the format contract should be made. There is a clear difference in the understanding of cash exchange between the parties in this case. The defendant believes that both are cash, while the plaintiff believes that cash exchange is not cash, and the acceptance bill provided by the plaintiff is also one of the cash exchanges; At the same time, the defendant's standard contract only clearly stated the requirement for spot exchange for 500000 yuan, and did not specify the requirements for 1 million yuan and 1.5 million yuan. Therefore, a favorable understanding should be made for the plaintiff regarding whether cash exchange is applicable for 1 million and 1.5 million yuan.

3. Although the business contact letter was not binding due to the plaintiff's objection, it cannot be denied that it is a comprehensive summary of the relevant facts during the cooperation process between the two parties and is one of the evidence in this case. The business contact letter acknowledges the plaintiff's remittance of 1.5 million yuan and promises to provide preferential policies. Therefore, based on the evidence, it should also be determined that the plaintiff paid 1.5 million yuan within the specified time.

In summary, the plaintiff should enjoy a rebate of 1.5 million yuan and 75000 yuan.

Judgment of the second instance court

The second instance judgment held that due to the inclusion of the payment method in the policy of major clients as "spot exchange", the allegation is unclear, as "spot exchange" is a professional term used in the international financial field. In the case of unclear agreement, the defendant claimed that the payment for executing the major customer policy must be in cash without sufficient reasons. The calculation of the major customer policy rebate in the business contact letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff was also based on receiving 1.5 million yuan from the plaintiff. It can be seen that the defendant has admitted to receiving the 1.5 million yuan payment within the specified period, so a rebate of 75000 yuan should be given to the plaintiff; At the same time, it should be corrected that the total rebate and the speed rebate were undercalculated. Therefore, a revised judgment was made to support the plaintiff's claim.