Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the supplier's violation of the integrity agreement constituted a breach of contract, but the degree of breach was deemed low, resulting in a compensation of 50,000 yuan to the hotel [1][4]. Group 1: Contractual Details - A supply contract was signed between a hotel and a seafood farm, with a duration from July 8, 2017, to July 6, 2018, and provisions for annual renewal [1]. - The contract stipulated that the seafood farm must deliver goods as per orders and payments were to be made monthly based on a "pay one, deliver one" model [1]. - The integrity agreement attached to the contracts prohibited the seafood farm from lending money or assets to hotel personnel, with a penalty of 10% of the total contract value for violations [2]. Group 2: Breach of Agreement - Between November 8, 2017, and January 19, 2023, the hotel made multiple payments totaling approximately 9.72 million yuan to the seafood farm [2]. - The seafood farm's operator reported that the hotel’s former financial supervisor had coerced suppliers into lending money, threatening to withhold payments otherwise [2][3]. - The court found that the operator's lending of 212,000 yuan to the hotel’s financial supervisor violated the integrity agreement, thus incurring liability for breach of contract [4]. Group 3: Court's Rationale - The court emphasized the importance of integrity in business practices, linking it to the core socialist values of honesty and fairness [4]. - The breach was assessed based on the context of the contract's annual renewal and the lack of evidence that the seafood farm sought improper benefits from the lending [4]. - The court determined that the penalty should be 50,000 yuan, considering the low degree of breach and the fact that the seafood farm had since been dissolved [4][5]. Group 4: Legal Context - The ruling reflects the legal stance against commercial bribery and the role of integrity agreements in preventing such practices [6]. - The upcoming implementation of the "Promotion Law of the Private Economy" emphasizes the need for a culture of integrity and compliance within private enterprises [7]. - The court's decision highlights the necessity for fair enforcement of integrity agreements, ensuring that they do not disproportionately burden one party [7].