ChinaTradeResolve
Training example

Training example: evidence-based case assessment

This is a fictional training example with invented dates, amounts and evidence IDs. It is not legal advice and does not describe a real client.

1Case summary

Issue:EUR 4,800 order: delivered goods appear to use a different material and omit a promised component.
Desired outcome:Requested outcome: EUR 1,600 partial refund or replacement of the non-conforming items.
Current status:Marketplace dispute opened on 10 February 2026; supplier contests the specification.

2Preliminary assessment

The strongest point is the written specification in E01 combined with the supplier confirmation in E02. Photos in E05 support a visible mismatch but do not by themselves prove material composition. Preserve the final agreed specification and obtain objective material evidence if composition remains disputed.

3Key facts and timeline

  1. 8 January 2026 — E01: written order specifies full-grain leather and a removable support insert.
  2. 12 January 2026 — E02: supplier message confirms the specified material before final payment.
  3. 4 February 2026 — E04/E05: delivery list and dated photos indicate the support insert is absent and the surface differs from the agreed description.

4Evidence matrix

ClaimSupporting materialsSupplier positionRisk
Wrong materialE01 order specification; E02 supplier confirmation; E05 dated photosSupplier says the wording was only a general product descriptionPhotos support appearance, not composition; independent testing may be needed
Missing componentE01 final specification; E04 delivery list; E05 unpacking photosSupplier says the component was optionalConfirm E01 is the final agreed version and preserve the acceptance message

5Recommended strategy

  • Export E01 and E02 in their original form and record the platform timestamps.
  • Create a one-page chronology linking each allegation to E01–E05 instead of submitting an unsorted archive.
  • Ask the supplier to answer the material and missing-component points separately in writing.
  • If material composition remains disputed, obtain proportionate independent technical evidence before making a categorical claim.

Claim → Specific evidence → Counter-position → Risk → Next action

Return to website