Photocopies Don't Collect Debts: Evidence Risk in Vietnamese Commercial Contracts

Case Reference

Appellate Judgment No. 06/2024/KDTM-PT, issued by the People’s Court of Can Tho on 11 March 2024, reviewing a first-instance judgment in a sale-of-goods contract dispute.

Parties: A Vietnamese supplier company versus a corporate buyer that did not appear at trial or on appeal despite repeated lawful summons.

Dispute type: Payment claim under a sale-of-goods contract.

---

The Claim

The plaintiff supplier alleged that it had sold goods to the defendant company and was owed roughly VND 54 million in unpaid principal plus interest. The defendant did not appear at first instance or on appeal, despite the court confirming that it had been properly summoned.

That absence might look like an easy win for the supplier. It was not.

Vietnamese civil procedure allows a court to proceed when a party has been lawfully summoned and still fails to appear. But absence is not admission. A court may decide without the defendant, but the plaintiff still has to prove its own claim.

This is the central lesson of the case: an uncontested defendant is not the same thing as a proven debt.

What the Plaintiff Submitted

To support the claim, the plaintiff relied on three categories of documents.

First, it submitted a goods delivery list showing what had allegedly been shipped to the buyer. The problem was that the document was a photocopy and did not sufficiently show that the defendant had confirmed receipt, accepted the quantity, or agreed on the value of the goods.

Second, it submitted a photocopy of a bank transfer record dated November 2022. The transfer showed that money moved, but it did not clearly connect that movement to the specific contract, invoice, or outstanding balance claimed in court.

Third, it submitted a vi bằng. In Vietnam, a vi bằng is a bailiff’s record of facts or events directly witnessed at a specific time. It can be a source of evidence, but it is not a notarized contract, not a debt acknowledgment, and not a substitute for the counterparty’s confirmation.

At the appellate hearing, the plaintiff had nothing materially new to add. No original documents. No signed delivery confirmation from the buyer. No written acknowledgment of debt. No clearer payment reference tying the transfer to the disputed sale.

What the Court Found

The court’s reasoning was straightforward. The documents, whether considered separately or together, did not prove the necessary legal facts.

They did not prove that the defendant had received the goods. They did not prove that the defendant had accepted the goods at the price claimed. They did not prove how much remained unpaid. And they did not prove that the bank transfer was made under the specific sale transaction at issue.

A vi bằng recording a transfer or factual event does not prove the legal reason behind that event. It may show that something happened at a point in time. It does not create agreement on price, quantity, delivery, or debt where the underlying documents do not show those facts.

Under the burden of proof rule, the party making a claim must prove it. Because the plaintiff did not provide new or corroborating evidence, the appellate court decided the case on the existing record. The record was not enough. The claim was rejected at both levels, and the plaintiff bore court costs.

This may well have been a real receivable. But in court, a commercially plausible claim is still a failed claim if the evidentiary file cannot prove it.

---

The 3C Breakdown

Control — Did the transaction capture the buyer’s confirmation in real time?

The file did not show a reliable buyer-side confirmation of delivery, invoice value, or outstanding debt. That is not merely a missing document. It is a missing business process.

A supplier should not treat delivery as complete until the receiving party signs, stamps, emails, messages, or otherwise confirms receipt in a way that can later be produced in court. Without that step, the seller is left with documents it created for itself.

Conduct — Was the evidence collected in a court-ready form?

The plaintiff relied heavily on photocopies. Copies may have practical value in business operations, but litigation requires a stronger evidentiary file. Originals, signed delivery notes, invoice confirmations, clear payment references, and debt acknowledgments carry far more weight.

The vi bằng point is especially important. Businesses sometimes use it as if it can replace contractual evidence. It cannot. It can record an event, preserve an online exchange, or document a factual situation. But it cannot turn an unsigned delivery list into the buyer’s admission, and it cannot convert an unexplained transfer into proof of a specific debt.

Consequence — What happens when a real claim is not provable?

The plaintiff may have lost more than a lawsuit. It may have lost a recoverable receivable because the evidence was never built properly.

The defendant’s absence did not save the claim. Vietnamese civil procedure requires proof, not merely silence from the other side. If the plaintiff cannot prove delivery, price, payment history, and balance, the court cannot simply infer them from the plaintiff’s version of events.

---

Legal Basis

• Article 91, Civil Procedure Code 2015 — burden of proof for parties asserting claims.
• Article 296, Civil Procedure Code 2015 — appellate trial in the absence of properly summoned parties.
• Clause 1, Article 308, Civil Procedure Code 2015 — appellate authority to uphold a first-instance judgment.
• Article 50, Commercial Law 2005 — buyer’s payment obligation in sale-of-goods transactions.
• Article 36, Decree 08/2020/ND-CP — legal value of vi bằng as a source of evidence, not a substitute for notarized or authenticated documents.

---

Practical Takeaways for Foreign Investors and SMEs

This case is common, which is why it matters. The legal theory was simple: goods were sold, money was allegedly unpaid. The weakness was not theory. It was evidence.

• Do not rely on documents generated only by your own side. Delivery lists, invoices, and internal statements should be confirmed by the counterparty whenever possible.
• Use clear payment references. Each bank transfer should refer to the contract, invoice number, payment period, or outstanding balance it is meant to settle.
• Confirm debt periodically. A short reconciliation email or statement confirming the balance can become powerful evidence later.
• Understand vi bằng before relying on it. It is useful for preserving facts, but it is not a shortcut around signed commercial documents.
• Keep originals and litigation-ready files. A small habit at the delivery stage can decide whether a later claim is recoverable.

The lesson is simple: evidence discipline is not a litigation task. It is a transaction habit. That is why the Control–Conduct–Consequence framework treats it as a risk design issue from the beginning.