Before any legal action, a comprehensive review of every document — contracts, emails, and especially WeChat messages — to identify the strongest claims, quantify damages, and anticipate the supplier's defenses.
A pre-action document review is the analytical foundation of every dispute. Before sending a demand letter, before filing an arbitration, and before committing to a litigation strategy, we systematically review every document in your possession.
This review identifies what claims you have, how strong they are, what evidence supports them, what gaps exist, and what the supplier will likely argue in response. It is the difference between proceeding with confidence and proceeding blind.
Framework agreements, purchase orders (POs), general terms and conditions, amendments, side letters, MOUs.
Pre-contract negotiations, post-contract performance communications, dispute-related correspondence, internal emails discussing the supplier relationship.
Often the most revealing — daily operational communications, quality discussions, delay notifications, acknowledgment of problems, promises to fix, agreement on specifications and changes.
Approved golden sample, production samples, technical specifications, quality control documentation, AQL (Acceptable Quality Level) standards referenced in the contract.
Pre-shipment inspection reports, post-arrival inspection reports, third-party testing lab results, internal QC reports.
Bills of lading, packing lists, commercial invoices, certificates of origin, fumigation certificates, insurance certificates.
T/T (telegraphic transfer) slips, L/C (letter of credit) documents and correspondence, bank statements, proof of deposit payment, exchange rate records.
Business license (营业执照), export registration, certificates (ISO, BSCI, etc.), company chop/signatory authority documents.
Demand letters (yours or theirs), lawyer correspondence, notices of default, reservation of rights letters.
Breach of contract, CISG violation (Article 35 conformity, Article 33 delivery, Article 74 damages), tort claims (fraud, misrepresentation), Chinese Civil Code provisions.
Late notice of defects, acceptance of goods without reservation, failure to mitigate, contributory fault, contractual limitations on liability.
Buyer's specifications caused the defect, force majeure, buyer inspected and accepted, claim is time-barred, damages are too remote/speculative, buyer failed to pay on time first.
Does CISG apply? Has it been excluded? What does the contract say about governing law? Is the dispute resolution clause enforceable?
Under Chinese Civil Code (3 years for general civil claims), under CISG (no specific limitation period — domestic law applies), when did the cause of action accrue? Has the limitation period been interrupted?
What is missing — missing contract provisions, unrecorded oral agreements, incomplete WeChat threads, missing inspection reports, unsigned documents, ambiguous specifications.
What can you prove? Direct loss (cost of defective goods, cost of cover/replacement), consequential loss (lost profits, customer claims against you), reliance damages, mitigation (did you resell the goods? At what price?).
Article 1(1)(a) — both parties have places of business in different Contracting States (China and most of its trading partners are CISG Contracting States).
Has CISG been excluded? Article 6 allows parties to exclude CISG, but exclusion must be explicit — a mere choice of Chinese law does not necessarily exclude CISG, since CISG is part of Chinese law.
Key CISG provisions in document review: Article 8 (interpretation of party statements and conduct — how would a reasonable person understand the communications?), Article 9 (trade usages and practices between the parties), Article 35 (conformity of goods — does the evidence show the goods conformed?), Articles 38-39 (examination and notice — did the buyer examine in time? Give notice in time?), Article 74 (damages — foreseeability at time of contract formation).
No quality standard defined, no liquidated damages for delay, no IP ownership clause, vague or missing dispute resolution clause.
Supplier agreed to use a different material in a phone call — no written record.
Messages were deleted, phone was replaced, chat history not exported before account change.
No third-party inspection was performed before shipment; buyer's internal inspection not documented.
PO was sent by email but never signed and stamped by the supplier.
"Same as last order" or "industry standard" without defining what those terms mean.
What you receive is a comprehensive written memorandum containing:
2-3 pages distilling the key findings, claim strengths, and recommended next steps.
Chronological narrative of the business relationship and the dispute's origins.
Each potential claim rated (strong / moderate / weak) with supporting legal basis.
For each material fact: what evidence exists, what is missing, how to fill the gaps.
What we know about the supplier from documents — corporate structure, key personnel, behavioral patterns.
What the supplier will argue and how to respond — preemptively mapped for every claim.
Preliminary quantification with supporting evidence references and methodology notes.
Litigation/arbitration risk, enforcement risk, cost risk — candidly evaluated.
Prioritized action items: evidence gathering, demand letter, negotiation approach, filing recommendation.
Ensuring every assertion is supported by the documentary record — no claim without a citation.
Providing the evidence and claim strength foundation for deciding whether to negotiate, mediate, or file.
Identifying what evidence to submit, what claims to plead, and what weaknesses to address before the tribunal sees them.
Knowing exactly what you can prove — and what you cannot — allows for realistic, leverage-maximizing settlement positions.
3-7 business days depending on document volume.
Expedited review (1-2 business days) available for urgent matters.
Document ingestion → Initial review → Legal analysis → Memo drafting → Quality review → Delivery
A US importer believed they had only a series of informal POs with a Chinese electronics supplier. Document review of WeChat messages revealed the supplier had acknowledged — in writing — a guaranteed annual volume commitment and a most-favored-customer pricing clause. These acknowledgments, combined with consistent course of performance, were sufficient to establish a binding contract under CISG Article 8 and 9. The client had been overcharged by 12% across three years — a claim they did not know they had until our review uncovered it.
A German machinery buyer faced delivery of a production line that failed performance tests. The supplier demanded full payment and threatened arbitration. Our document review identified that the buyer had accepted a partial delivery and signed a commissioning certificate without reserving rights — a fact the buyer considered a mere formality. Under CISG Article 39, this significantly weakened their non-conformity claim. Recognizing the litigation risk, we negotiated a 55% price reduction settlement within two weeks.
What if I don't have all the documents?
That is common — and identifying what is missing is one of the most valuable outputs of the review. We will tell you what you need to try to obtain, and assess how the gaps affect your position. Sometimes the absence of a document is itself informative.
What if my documents are in Chinese — do I need to translate them first?
No. Our team handles documents in both Chinese and English. We work directly with Chinese-language contracts, WeChat messages, and business records. Translation is only needed if the documents will be submitted to a tribunal that requires English translations — and we will advise when that is necessary.
How does the review memo relate to attorney-client privilege?
The review memo is prepared for your legal counsel and is protected by legal professional privilege. It is an internal work product that informs litigation strategy — not a document intended for disclosure. We structure the memo and our file management to preserve privilege.
Can the review memo be used as evidence in arbitration or litigation?
Generally not — the memo itself is privileged legal analysis. However, the review identifies the actual evidence (contracts, emails, WeChat messages, inspection reports) that will be submitted. The memo tells you what to submit and why — it is not itself an exhibit.
What if the review reveals my case is weak?
That is precisely why you should commission it. Knowing your case is weak before you invest in arbitration allows you to negotiate from an informed position, settle early on the best available terms, or decide not to pursue the matter. Proceeding without knowing your weaknesses is the most expensive mistake any litigant can make.
We provide professional, comprehensive, and commercially pragmatic legal services to buyers worldwide. Whether you need immediate dispute intervention or preventive contract structuring, we are ready to assist.
Send EmailThis page is part of a special topic series on
luoweilvshi.com