The Phantom Contract: Ben’s COVID Crusade and the Million-Mask Conundrum

As the world grappled with the relentless surge of COVID-19, the clarion call for protection echoed through every alley and avenue. Ben, a merchant with a heart as vast as the ocean, recognized the tide of need that swelled around him. In a time when every breath could be a harbinger of unseen peril, masks had become the armor for humanity’s frontline.

With a vision to safeguard his community, Ben reached out to a well-known factory, reputed for its weaves of safety and swaths of cloth that could filter the very essence of fear. His mission was clear; to procure not just a handful of masks, but 1 million shields against the invisible foe. This was no mere transaction—it was a covenant of health, a pledge to stand as a bulwark against the virus’s insidious spread.

The order was placed during the zenith of the pandemic when demand soared like a feverish pulse and supply chains gasped under the strain of urgency. Ben’s foresight was his guiding star, leading him to act swiftly, securing a contract when such commodities were as precious as liquid gold.

He envisioned these masks not as mere threads and elastic but as lifelines distributed to hospitals, to the vulnerable elderly in care homes, and to the weary pedestrians braving the ghostly streets of cities under siege from the pandemic.

But as the pandemic raged on like an unyielding storm, the factory’s looms fell silent. The promise of delivery was snatched away, leaving Ben not just empty-handed but with the specter of a broken contract. His noble quest was in jeopardy, the safety he sought to provide dissipating like mist.

In the frantic search that followed, it became evident that the original contract had disappeared, perhaps claimed by the chaos that COVID brought to every desk and office. The discovery of a photocopy was Ben’s only solace, his last bastion of hope to hold the factory to account.

 

Law In A Minute

Ben’s legal standing in the case of the factory’s refusal to deliver the 1 million masks would be precarious if he were to rely solely on the photocopy of the original contract.

While a photocopy does possess legal standing, its evidentiary weight is significantly less than that of the original document due to the potential for alteration. In instances where the party providing the photocopy is either unwilling or unable to produce the original document, or fails to provide sufficient clues as to the whereabouts of the original, the photocopy by itself would not suffice in affirming facts in a court of law, especially if the opposing party does not acknowledge the validity of the photocopy.

For Ben to strengthen his case, it would be imperative to supplement the photocopy with additional evidence that substantiates the existence and the terms of the contract. This could include a combination of WeChat messages or other written correspondence between Ben and the factory that detail the agreement and subsequent discussions regarding the mask order. Moreover, evidence of a bank transfer or financial transactions related to the purchase would be crucial. Such documents could serve to corroborate the terms of the contract and Ben’s fulfillment of any preliminary conditions or payments as stipulated by the contract.

 

Legal Basis

Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law

Article 78

Where the evidence materials are photocopies, if the provider refuses to submit originals or clues of originals, there is no other evidence that can confirm the said evidence materials, and the opposing party refuses to recognize them, the said evidence materials shall not be taken as the grounds for affirmation of facts in the litigation.