<p>““Morals are partly taught and partly understood as basic human nature. The ability to discern right from wrong is a basic tenet in socialization of human interaction.””</p>
<p>This should be taught at the kindergarten level in China, if not for the Cultural Revolution. For example, the “Three Character Classic” that I have read since 4 years old says, [??? - ???](<a href=“三字經 - 中國哲學書電子化計劃”>三字經 - 中國哲學書電子化計劃) ,</p>
<p>“Men at their birth, are naturally good. Their natures are much the same, their habits become widely different. If foolishly there is no teaching, the nature will deteriorate. The right way in teaching, is to attach the utmost importance in thoroughness…”</p>
<p>“If the child does not learn, this is not as it should be. If he does not learn while young, what will he be when old? If jade is not polished, it cannot become a thing of use. If a man does not learn, he cannot know his duty towards his neighbour…”</p>
<p>“Begin with filial piety and fraternal love, and then see and hear. Learn to count, and learn to read… We speak of charity of heart and of duty towards one’s neighbour, of propriety, of wisdom, and of truth. These five virtues admit of no compromise…”</p>
<p>This is what traditional Chinese family values encourage (Confucian version, written in the 13th century, Song dynasty). It is simply lost for some in China, after the Cultural Revolution.</p>
<p>PG, I don’t know about the details of your transactions. But in general, you would need to build some relationship first, before doing business with China. This is how people from Hong Kong and Taiwan enter the Chinese markets through networking. Absent of a relationship with somebody in-charge, they would be suspicious of you as a stranger, as much as you are cautious of being scammed.</p>
<p>I am dealing with the Chinese branch of a US-based multinational company that my firm has a 10 year relationship with. I am not a stranger. The (US based) people they answer to have told them repeatedly to pay me, and are just as frustrated as I am at the delays and game-playing and run-around. I don’t have this problem with getting payment from the UK, Russia, Spain, or Australian clients I deal with. My deliverable has already been delivered, ahead of schedule. And they have the nerve to ask me to do followup work for free. But whatever, make excuses.</p>
<p>PG, I am surprised that you don’t use a bank LC, an escrow, or something equivalent for an international transaction. That would solve a lot of problems anywhere.</p>
<p>If the Chinese company has gone so far as to sign a contract, they’ve apparently set any lingering suspicions aside. The relationship has already been “built.” If they then take delivery of the goods or services they contracted for but refuse to pay, that’s fraud.</p>
<p>""If they then take delivery of the goods or services they contracted for but refuse to pay, that’s fraud. “”</p>
<p>If that were the case, then indeed, it is fraud. But should there be provisions on the contract detailing the consequences for a breach of contract, according to which the parties can settle by arbitration or law?</p>
<p>I have a master contract with the parent company. But instead of making continued excuses, StillGreen, why can’t you just admit that they are wrong and not dealing in good faith?</p>
Decades ago, while in the field offices in Asia, we relied heavily on clients getting their banks to issue “irrevocable letters of credit” before we delivered goods or services.</p>
<p>If a contract is signed and agreed to by all parties and it involves an exchange of value of some kind…all parties are legally bound to honor all terms of the contracts. Only exceptions are for extremely extenuating circumstances such as illegal terms, contract made under duress, etc. </p>
<p>If those exceptions don’t apply as is the case in the vast majority of contracts and underlying terms, a party which has failed to honor any part of the contract would be considered in breach and thus, can be held legally accountable in the courts unless there’s a specified provision for mandatory arbitration/mediation within said contract. </p>
<p>StillGreen, are you of the belief that a contract with clearly delineated terms and provisions can be ignored or changed on the capricious whims of one or more parties or if a part/entirety of the contract is inconvenient to some/all parties?</p>
<p>Calm down guys and gals. I am still trying to understand the situation to see why it wasn’t resolved. And if it were fraud, it doesn’t involve me. Why do you want to pound on me? :-)</p>
<p>"“I have a master contract with the parent company. But instead of making continued excuses, StillGreen, why can’t you just admit that they are wrong and not dealing in good faith?”"</p>
<p>PG, please read # 186, I am considering it to be fraud. But you know the details, I don’t. And you are only getting emotional, for which I understand. But what I don’t understand is,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>As mentioned in # 184 and also mentioned by Dad<em>of</em>3, why isn’t payment arranged through a bank LC, an escrow, or something equivalent, so that payment is already secured by a third party before delivery of product? This is common practice for international transactions.</p></li>
<li><p>Did you seek arbitration or law procedures according to the provisions of the contract?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"“StillGreen, are you of the belief that a contract with clearly delineated terms and provisions can be ignored or changed on the capricious whims of one or more parties or if a part/entirety of the contract is inconvenient to some/all parties?”"</p>
<p>Cobrat, what is wrong with settling contract disputes by arbitration or law? If you were found legit, then let the law take care of it. And how much do you know about PG’s transaction to begin with, to claim as much in your message? Or you are just venting on me, because you don’t like my earlier messages? :-)</p>
<p>I’m wondering why you feel the need to mention the law as such contractual disputes are usually assumed in most societies to be settled under the law by default unless an arbitration/mediation clause was specifically added in. </p>
<p>How else are contract disputes to be settled except under the law in most countries with even an attempted adherence to modern notions or rule of law???</p>
<p>We make toys.
Chinese factory workers produce them. without them we don’t have any products. That’s how I get to paid so I can send my kid to college.
I don’t feel very good about their condition or pricing we give but that’s life for me now.
I am thankful, no one cheats here, or everyone suffer.</p>
But it’s exactly what Kaplan did back in the 1940s before the SAT folks decided to beat him at his game and actually release some old tests and package them for self-study. The one difference is that by having the same test given on the same day, the benefit accrues much more quickly.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, it sound like in the future you will need to determine what you actually need to be paid by Chinese firms, then inflate that figure by 20% or so, and refuse to deliver your work product until the client has paid whatever percentage of the bill the “real” charges represent. Plus expenses. You know that they will stiff you on the remaining $$, but you won’t have been expecting to get that money anyway. :(</p>
<p>Stillgreen, your attempts to obfuscate and justify theft and fraud by suggesting that pople ought to have to go to arbitration simply to be paid a contractual amount for a product that has a) already been delivered, and b) evidently found to be satisfactory simply reveal the mindset that many other posts describe. Moreover, there is no reason to assume that these thieves will pay up even when being directed to do so by arbiters.</p>
<p>Consolation, you may want to read more carefully.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Payment should be arranged through a bank LC, an escrow, or something equivalent, so that payment is already secured by a third party before delivery of product. This is common practice for international transactions. Then we don’t even have this discussion to begin with. Why wasn’t it arranged as such, I don’t know.</p></li>
<li><p>Now that what did happen has already happened, the next reasonable step is to seek arbitration or law procedures according to the provisions of the contract. Whether this has been done, I don’t know either.</p></li>
<li><p>Which part of the above is justifying fraud? The rational objective is to resolve the issue with available venues, instead of merely laying blame, but without taking proper action. This is how I would handle such a situation myself. I won’t end up posting on a forum, extending and generalizing blame to fellow countrymen of the other party. :-)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"“Stillgreen, your attempts to obfuscate and justify theft and fraud by suggesting that pople ought to have to go to arbitration…”"</p>
<p>This is a new one: going through legal channels is supposedly justifying fraud. :-)</p>
<p>""…evidently found to be satisfactory simply reveal the mindset that many other posts describe.""</p>
<p>It does reveal the mindset of judgement by the “media”, rather appealing to the emotion than exercising available venues.</p>
<p>""…there is no reason to assume that these thieves will pay up even when being directed to do so by arbiters.""</p>
<p>Actually there is no reason that you should assume too much about what you don’t even know about PG’s transaction. :-)</p>
I am still trying to understand the situation to see why it wasn’t resolved. And if it were fraud, it doesn’t involve me. Why do you want to pound on me? :-)</p>