14

The Facts

The plaintiff is a retired teacher; the defendant is the J Company.

In October 1994, the plaintiff and other four teachers（A, B, C and D）concluded an oral agreement with the defendant. According to the agreement, the defendant would employ the plaintiff and his friends and pay them salaries to work as research assistants.

A month later, the defendant held a meeting. During the meeting, a manager in the J Company declared that the company would pay a “One Word, One Yuan” remuneration to anyone in the company if his article was published in any newspaper or magazine, provided the author’s name and the company’s trade name would have to be identified in the article.  The five teachers attended the meeting, but the manager’s declaration was never put into writing.

In April 1995, the plaintiff published a professional article in a magazine; the author was the plaintiff, and the company the author belonged was identified as the J Company.   There were 3,800 words in the article.  The plaintiff asked the defendant to pay him the “One Word, One Yuan” remuneration but was refused by the latter.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach and asked the latter to pay him RMB 3,800 yuan. The defendant argued that there were three preconditions for the “One Word, One Yuan” remuneration policy: first, the article must be of professional quality; second, the article should be published in a professional journal; third, the company should approve the article. The other four teachers testified during the court hearing. However, they were divided into two groups: A and B claimed that there had been no preconditions for the remuneration; C and D claimed there had been.  C also said that he told D what he would say as a witness before writing out his testimony.

Held

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the “One Word, One Yuan” remuneration.

Analysis

        In this case, it is clear that the “One Yuan, One Word” policy existed. The question lies in the three preconditions.  Under evidence law, first, the power of the testimony of a witness is not predetermined; judges will examine it. Second, litigants are obliged to present evidence for their assertions. Third, the testimony made by a witness should be an expression of his own ideas. The testimony of witnesses is generally used as indirect evidence; it cannot serve to establish the relevant facts of the case independently without the help of other evidence.

In this case, C and D appeared as witnesses during the court hearing to support the defendant’s argument, but the testimony of D had been influenced by C before he appeared in court. The testimony D gave was not his own and couldn't support the defendant’s argument.  In a nutshell, the defendant wanted to free itself from the legal liability of paying the plaintiff RMB 3,800 yuan.