Capital Iron & Steel-Japan Electric Electronics Co. v. Chen Jingke

CEILAW, Selected People’s Court Cases, Case 115211995036 (1994)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Capital Iron & Steel-Japan Electric Electronics Co. v. Chen Jingke

People’s Court
CEILAW, Selected People’s Court Cases, Case 115211995036 (1994)

Facts

Capital Iron & Steel-Japan Electric Electronics Company (Capital Iron) (plaintiff) hired Chen Jingke (defendant). Chen signed several contracts with Capital Iron. Capital Iron had two key rights under the contracts: (1) Capital Iron could recover any training expenses incurred if Chen left or was absent during the employment term and (2) if Chen was absent without authorized leave, the employment was automatically terminated, and Chen had to compensate Capital Iron’s damages with three months’ average wages. Capital Iron sent Chen to Japan for approximately a year of training, loaning him money for the trip. Upon his return, Chen went on leave to visit family and then failed to return to work despite receiving no authorization for further leave. Instead, Chen’s father sent Capital Iron a false medical letter requesting additional leave so that Chen could recover from a disease. Capital Iron sent a representative to the home, but Chen was not there. Capital Iron then sent Chen a letter stating that he had to return or face discipline. Chen failed to return. Capital Iron terminated the employment contracts and filed a complaint with the Beijing Labor Arbitration Committee, seeking the cost of training, the loan, and economic damages, all of which the committee granted. Chen appealed, seeking reinstatement and back pay; Chen also claimed that the Japanese government had underwritten the training costs. Thus, according to Chen, he owed no damages. The appellate court rejected Chen’s arguments, affirmed the judgment, and ordered Chen to pay the amounts owed. Chen appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership