No table of contents available
Vietnamese manufacturers and processing companies increasingly work with Chinese partners under processing, OEM, and subcontracting arrangements. In most cases, these relationships are commercially beneficial. However, disputes arise when the Chinese partner fails or delays payment of processing fees after goods are completed or delivered.
At that point, many businesses face a difficult decision:
Is it better to negotiate, or should legal action be taken immediately?
The right answer depends on legal, commercial, and enforcement factors. Acting too aggressively can escalate costs and destroy recovery chances. Acting too passively can lead to permanent loss.
Under Vietnamese law and international commercial practice, failure to pay agreed processing fees is a fundamental breach of contract unless a valid legal justification exists.
This situation commonly occurs when:
The Chinese partner faces cash-flow difficulties
Goods are rejected or delayed at downstream buyers
Pricing disputes arise after production
The partner intentionally delays payment to gain leverage
Regardless of the reason, non-payment directly affects the Vietnamese manufacturer’s cash flow and operational stability.
Many businesses react emotionally to non-payment by:
Threatening immediate lawsuits
Cutting off communication
Publicly accusing the partner
Others do the opposite and wait too long, hoping payment will arrive eventually.
Both extremes are risky. The correct approach requires legal qualification and commercial strategy, not impulse.
Before deciding whether to sue or negotiate, the processing contract must be reviewed in detail.
Key issues include:
Clear definition of processing fees and payment deadlines
Conditions for acceptance or rejection of goods
Payment triggers (delivery, acceptance, export, inspection)
Penalties or interest for late payment
Governing law and dispute resolution clause
Jurisdiction and enforcement provisions
Many disputes escalate simply because contracts were drafted without considering cross-border enforcement realities.
Not every refusal to pay is automatically unlawful.
Chinese partners often argue:
Goods do not meet specifications
Acceptance has not occurred
Downstream buyers have not paid
Market conditions changed
A legal assessment is required to determine:
Whether these reasons are contractually valid
Whether payment obligations are unconditional
Whether the breach is established
This step is critical before choosing negotiation or litigation.
Negotiation is often the first and most cost-effective option, especially when:
The Chinese partner remains communicative
There is a long-term business relationship
The partner has ongoing operations or assets to protect
Payment delay appears temporary
Structured negotiation backed by legal leverage can often recover payment faster than formal proceedings.
However, informal negotiation without legal oversight can backfire.
Common mistakes include:
Granting repeated extensions without documentation
Accepting partial payment without reservation of rights
Making admissions that weaken legal claims
Negotiation should be legally structured, not casual.
Legal action should be considered when:
The partner refuses to pay without legal basis
Communication breaks down
Negotiation is used only to delay
Assets are at risk of being moved or concealed
At this stage, early legal action preserves leverage, even if settlement remains the ultimate goal.
The choice depends primarily on the contract.
If an arbitration clause exists, arbitration is often preferable because:
Proceedings are faster
Confidentiality is preserved
Enforcement across borders may be easier
If no arbitration clause exists, court litigation may be unavoidable—but jurisdiction and enforcement must be assessed carefully.
Choosing the wrong forum can waste months or years.
Winning a case is meaningless without enforcement.
Vietnamese companies must consider:
Whether the Chinese partner has assets in Vietnam
Whether assets exist in China or third countries
Whether judgments or awards can be enforced cross-border
In many cases, legal pressure combined with negotiation produces better results than waiting for final judgments.
In practice, leverage is lost because:
Legal advice is sought too late
Evidence is informal or incomplete
Negotiation is unstructured
Enforcement is not considered early
By the time litigation begins, recovery options may already be limited.
One common misunderstanding is that businesses must choose either negotiation or litigation.
In reality:
Litigation can strengthen negotiation leverage
Negotiation can resolve disputes during litigation
Early legal action does not prevent settlement
The key is timing and strategy, not choosing one path blindly.
Many manufacturers engage lawyers only after non-payment becomes critical.
This reactive approach leads to:
Higher legal costs
Limited strategic options
Repeated disputes with different partners
Processing disputes with Chinese partners are rarely isolated incidents.
With ongoing legal consultancy, businesses can:
Draft processing contracts with enforceable payment terms
Monitor payment risks early
Respond quickly when non-payment occurs
Use negotiation and litigation strategically
This proactive approach reduces losses and shortens recovery time.
Vietnamese manufacturers working with Chinese partners face cumulative risk:
Large production volumes
Advance costs borne by the factory
Thin margins
Without continuous legal oversight, one unpaid order can destabilize operations.
DEDICA provides ongoing legal consultancy services and dispute support for Vietnamese and FDI companies dealing with non-payment by Chinese partners.
DEDICA assists clients by:
Reviewing processing and OEM contracts
Assessing payment obligations and breach
Designing negotiation strategies backed by legal leverage
Representing clients in arbitration and court proceedings
Advising on cross-border enforcement strategy
DEDICA’s approach focuses on commercial recovery, enforceability, and risk control, not unnecessary escalation.
When a Chinese partner fails to pay processing fees, both negotiation and litigation have roles—but timing and strategy determine success.
Negotiation without legal structure can weaken your position. Litigation without enforcement planning can waste resources.
By engaging ongoing legal consultancy, manufacturers can:
Decide when to negotiate and when to sue
Preserve leverage throughout the dispute
Recover payments more efficiently
Protect long-term business stability
📞 Hotline: (+84) 39 969 0012 (Available via WhatsApp, WeChat, Zalo)
🕒 Working Hours: Monday – Friday (8:30 – 18:00)
Contact us today for a free initial consultation with our experienced lawyers!
Select a platform to view details
