A Real-World Problem Behind Cross-Border Transactions
A recent cross-border equipment transaction highlighted a common but often overlooked issue in international business: the company you communicate with may not always be the company legally responsible under the contract.
In this transaction, an overseas buyer entered into an equipment purchase agreement with a Hong Kong company. During the negotiation and performance process, however, the buyer mainly communicated with a Shenzhen-based team in the Chinese mainland. Technical discussions, production arrangements and after-sales coordination involved different parties within China.
When the equipment failed to achieve the expected performance after delivery, the buyer faced a question that was more complicated than the quality issue itself:
Who should bear legal responsibility?
The difficulty was not necessarily that the buyer lacked a legitimate claim. Rather, the unclear allocation of roles among different entities made it significantly more complicated and costly to pursue effective remedies.
When Business Relationships Do Not Match Legal Relationships
In cross-border transactions involving Chinese suppliers, it is common for different business functions to be handled by different entities. A Hong Kong company may handle overseas sales and payment arrangements, while a Chinese mainland entity may manage technical communication and operational support. Manufacturing may be carried out by another company.
Such arrangements are not problematic by themselves. Modern supply chains often rely on cooperation among multiple entities. The problem arises when the commercial structure is not properly reflected in the legal documents.
From a business perspective, overseas buyers often identify their counterparty through daily interactions: the sales representative they communicate with, the technical team providing solutions, or the company brand presented to them. However, the legal documents may tell a different story: the contract may be signed by another entity, payments may be made to another account, and the manufacturer may not be a party to the agreement.
When disputes arise, this gap between commercial reality and legal structure may create significant challenges. Where multiple entities are involved, they may naturally seek to allocate or deny responsibility among themselves, leaving the buyer in a difficult position. Even where a buyer has a valid claim regarding product defects or contractual non-performance, it may still need to spend substantial time and resources identifying the proper defendant and establishing the legal basis for recovery.
The Cost of an Unclear Transaction Structure
The choice of contracting party is not merely a commercial decision. It may also directly affect jurisdiction, governing law, dispute resolution mechanisms and the practical cost of enforcing rights.
In cross-border transactions, different contracting entities may lead to different legal consequences. For example, a contract signed with an offshore entity may require the buyer to consider proceedings in another jurisdiction, while a contract involving a Chinese mainland entity may provide different options regarding dispute resolution and enforcement.
These issues are often overlooked at the beginning of a transaction because the parties are primarily focused on commercial terms, product specifications and delivery arrangements. However, when disputes arise, the absence of a clear contractual structure may significantly increase the cost of obtaining a remedy.
In practice, some cross-border transactions involving significant-value equipment are still documented primarily through quotations, purchase orders or invoices, without detailed provisions regarding governing law, dispute resolution, warranty obligations or liability allocation. While such arrangements may appear efficient and convenient at the beginning of the transaction, they may create substantial uncertainty when disagreements occur.
Once a dispute arises, the claimant may need to spend additional time and resources determining fundamental questions before even reaching the merits of the claim: Which entity should be pursued? Which law applies? Which forum has jurisdiction? How can a judgment or arbitral award be enforced?
These procedural issues may increase legal costs, delay resolution and weaken the claimant’s practical bargaining position, even where the underlying claim has merit.
For this reason, dispute resolution arrangements should not be treated as a standard clause added at the end of a contract. They are part of the overall risk allocation structure of a cross-border transaction.
Practical Considerations Before Signing
Before entering into a significant cross-border transaction, companies should carefully consider whether the legal structure reflects the actual business relationship.
Key questions include:
Who is the legal seller under the contract?
Who receives payment?
Who manufactures the product?
Who provides warranty and after-sales support?
Who will be responsible if the product fails to meet the agreed requirements?
Where multiple entities are involved, the parties should consider whether the relevant entities should be included in the contractual structure. Depending on the circumstances, this may include adding the actual operating entity as a contracting party, requiring the manufacturer to provide direct warranties, or incorporating technical representations made during negotiations into the contractual obligations.
For companies working with Chinese suppliers, the key issue is not whether a transaction involves multiple entities. Multiple-entity structures are common in international commerce. The key issue is whether the legal structure accurately reflects the commercial reality and provides an effective mechanism for resolving disputes.
In cross-border transactions, the important question is not only:
“Who delivers the product?”
It is also:
“Who stands behind the contract, and how can that responsibility be effectively enforced when things go wrong?”
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Limitation periods, security arrangements and enforcement options should be assessed on the specific documents and circumstances.
Copyright Notice: © Siming Wang. All rights reserved. Short quotations are permitted with clear attribution and a link to the original article. Full reproduction, translation, adaptation or commercial use requires prior written permission, except as otherwise permitted by law.