Hukou problem
Mr. Liu, who lives in Beijing, bought Mr. Jiang's house in order for his daughter to attend a certain key point. The two parties agreed in the sales contract that Mr. Jiang should move out of the original account within 30 days after the transfer of the house, and pay a penalty of 0.5 ‰ of the total house price every day after the deadline.
After Mr. Liu paid the purchase price and transferred the house to his own name, Mr. Jiang did not move out of the account on schedule, and Mr. Liu also delayed his daughter's time at this critical point because of the delay in moving in the account. After repeated communication failed, Mr. Liu sued Mr. Jiang to the court, demanding that Mr. Jiang move out of his account and pay a penalty of five ten thousandths of the total house price on a daily basis.
Mr. Jiang argued that his new house had not yet come down and he could not move out of the account on schedule. He hopes that the court will reduce the liquidated damages. After hearing the case, the court held that Mr. Jiang did not move out of his household registration as agreed in the contract, which was a clear violation of the contract and should pay liquidated damages. In view of the fact that the standard of liquidated damages agreed by both parties is obviously too high, the court finally ruled that Mr. Jiang should pay 6,543,800 yuan as liquidated damages.
Judge's explanation
According to Article 114 of the Contract Law, the parties may agree that when one party breaches the contract, it shall pay a certain amount of liquidated damages to the other party according to the situation of the breach, and may also agree on the calculation method of the amount of damages for breach of contract. If the agreed liquidated damages are lower than the losses caused, the parties may request the people's court or arbitration institution to increase them; If the agreed liquidated damages are excessively higher than the losses caused, the parties may request the people's court or arbitration institution to reduce them appropriately.
Many parents spend a lot of money to buy real estate in order to send their children to prestigious schools. However, most of these houses have hukou in the house, which affects the household registration and actual use of buyers. Some buyers agreed in the sales contract to move out of the household registration within a time limit, but according to China's current household registration management policy, the jurisdiction of the household registration is the police station, not the court, and the court has no right to order the forced move out of the household registration. So it is difficult to solve the buyer's problem. And buyers often have paid the house payment, and even completed the house transfer procedures, and such disputes are increasing.
In this case, on the one hand, the buyer can stipulate in the sales contract that the account will be moved out as a condition for paying all or all the purchase price; On the other hand, it is necessary to inquire about the existing household registration in the house in advance and take the household registration as one of the factors to decide whether to buy a house, so as to make a rational judgment on whether to buy a house.
Housing payment problem
Xiao Liu worked hard in Beijing for many years and finally saved enough money to buy a house. 2065438+In March 2004, Xiao Liu signed a house sales contract with Ms. Ma, paid Ms. Ma 500,000 yuan in advance, and then remitted the remaining house payment to an account named Zhang Jia twice.
Unexpectedly, after Xiao Liu remitted the money, Ms. Ma refused to handle the house transfer formalities with Xiao Liu on the grounds that Xiao Liu had not paid the house. Xiao Liu said that the rest of the house payment was remitted to Zhang Jia account according to Ms. Ma's request. Ms. Ma denied this, and Liu Ye Jr. did not submit relevant evidence to prove that Ms. Ma instructed her to remit the relevant funds to Zhang Jia account, and the collection account number listed in the contract was not Zhang Jia. The case is under further investigation.
Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that the parties shall provide evidence in time for their claims. Article 2 of the Provisions of the Higher People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts they claim or refute. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the facts identified by the parties, the parties with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.
In market transactions, many property buyers have not developed the habit of signing written agreements on important matters to confirm and retain evidence, and often listen to oral agreements. Once the other party reneges, it will bring great losses if it can't provide conclusive evidence.
Especially for similar large-value housing transactions, buyers and sellers should clearly agree on key issues in the form of written contracts, which should be signed and sealed by both parties for confirmation. For the changes in the performance of the contract, a supplementary agreement should be signed to clarify them. Similar to the case of making money to others in this case, it is necessary to keep the written, audio and video, SMS, email and other relevant evidence that the seller entrusts others to collect money.
Delivery problem
In August, Mr. Zhang bought a house of Mr. Chen, and then Mr. Zhang paid the purchase price as agreed, and Mr. Chen and Mr. Zhang also went through the house transfer procedures. Just as Mr. Zhang was preparing to move into the new house, he found that the house had already been rented out to others by Mr. Chen, and the lease period expired in June 2006. Mr. Zhang then sued the tenant and Mr. Chen to the court and asked the tenant to move out within a time limit. Mr. Chen delivered the house.
Article 229 of the Contract Law stipulates that during the lease period, if the rights of the leased property change, the validity of the lease contract will not be affected. Article 119 of the Opinions of the Higher People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that if the property right of a private house is transferred due to sale, gift or inheritance during the lease period, the original contract is still valid for the lessee and the new owner.
The above principle of non-breach of contract does not affect the lease relationship even if the owner transfers the leased property to others during the lease relationship. The buyer cannot deny the existence of the original lease relationship and ask the lessee to return the lease item on the grounds that he has become the lease item.
In the sale of second-hand houses, buyers should fully understand the actual use of houses and conduct on-site investigations in time; At the same time, it can be clearly stipulated in the sales contract that in the process of contract performance, if the seller conceals the information that the house has been rented or intentionally rents the house to others, it shall pay a certain amount of liquidated damages to increase the seller's default cost.
Intense housing problem
At the beginning of March, under the intermediary service of an intermediary company, Ms. Zhang bought Ms. Liu's house. When signing the contract, an intermediary company and Ms. Liu agreed that no one had lived in the house before and nothing had happened.
After staying in the house, Ms. Zhang learned in the process of chatting with her neighbors by chance that Ms. Liu's husband hanged himself in the house. Ms. Zhang sued Ms. Liu to the court, demanding the termination of the house sales contract and demanding that Ms. Liu compensate for the decoration.
After hearing the case, the court held that both buyers and sellers should abide by the principle of good faith, and the seller should truthfully disclose the actual situation of the house. Although abnormal death occurs in the house, it does not affect the actual use value of the house objectively, but it will affect the psychological feelings of the purchaser, including fear and taboo, thus reducing the transaction value of the house and forming a major flaw in the house, which is a major problem affecting the conclusion of the house sales contract.
Ms. Liu deliberately concealed the murder in the house, which violated the principle of good faith. The signing of the contract by both parties also violates the true meaning of the parties and constitutes fraud. The court ruled in favor of Ms. Zhang's claim.
Article 54 of the Contract Law stipulates that one party has the right to request a people's court or an arbitration institution to modify or terminate the following contracts: (1) a contract concluded due to a major misunderstanding; (2) obviously unfair at the time of conclusion of the contract. If one party leads the other party to conclude a contract against its true meaning by fraud, coercion or taking advantage of others' danger, the injured party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to modify or cancel it.
In the actual transaction, the buyer can stipulate supplementary clauses in the sales contract and stipulate the liability for breach of contract on haunted houses and other issues; Before signing the contract, we should know about the housing situation through neighborhood committees, police stations, neighbors, community forums and other ways to avoid buying a haunted house by mistake.