This article was originally written by Beijing real estate lawyer Jin Shuangquan. Please indicate the source.
Case introduction:
On May 1 1 May, 2065438, the seller Qin Wang (Party A), the buyer Guo Xiaozhen (Party B) and the intermediary Chain Home Company (Party C) signed the Beijing Stock House Purchase and Sales Contract and the supplementary agreement. The three parties agreed in the contract that the disputed house is located in Shijingshan District, Beijing, with a total house price of 65,438. The down payment is 465,438+00,000 yuan, which shall be handled two working days before the registration of house ownership transfer, of which 300,000 yuan is in the form of capital supervision and 65,438+065,438+00,000 yuan is in the form of non-capital supervision; The loan is 6,543,800 yuan+0.2 million yuan. Within three working days after the house appraisal report is issued, Party A and Party B shall go to the lending institution together; Within three working days after the issuance of the house belt, the registration formalities for the transfer of house ownership shall be handled; The Seller shall deliver the house to the Buyer within three working days after receiving all the purchase price; Party B shall keep the house purchase price of RMB 20,000.00 Yuan as the deposit for house delivery and pay it to Party A on the day of house delivery; Party A shall obtain the notice of change of public houses purchased by the central unit in Beijing before June 6, 2005. Those who fail to do so shall bear corresponding responsibilities.
Under any of the following circumstances, Party A constitutes a fundamental breach of contract, and Party B has the right to terminate the house sales contract by written notice: 1, the house ownership certificate provided by Party A, the original house purchase contract and other relevant property rights certification procedures are untrue, incomplete and invalid, which makes it impossible for Party B to obtain the house ownership; 2. Party B is unable to obtain the ownership of the house because the house is sealed up or the transfer is restricted; 3. Failing to perform the obligations agreed in Article 2 of this Supplementary Agreement for more than fifteen days; 4. Refuse to sell the house to Party B or raise the house transaction price without authorization; 5. Sell the house to a third party. In case of any of the above fundamental breach of contract by Party A, Party A shall pay Party B a penalty equivalent to 20% of the total house price within 15 days from the date of breach of contract, and the fees collected by Party C will not be refunded, and Party A shall directly pay it to Party B.. ..
On the same day, the above three parties signed the Intermediary Service Contract and the Housing Transaction Guarantee Service Contract with the guarantee company, stipulating that the intermediary company will pay 37,000 yuan as the agency fee and the guarantee company will pay 8,400 yuan as the guarantee service fee. After signing the contract, Guo Xiaozhen paid the down payment of 50,000 yuan and the agency fee to the intermediary company.
After the signing of the above contract, Qin Wang went to the housing transaction office of the central unit in Beijing and the state organs to handle the listing procedures of the Notice of Registration of Property Right Change of the Central Unit in Beijing. However, from April 20th, 2065438 to June 20th, 2065438, Qin Wang failed to complete these procedures. I didn't get the notice until July 20 13 15.
2065438+On July 9, 2005, Guo Xiaozhen sued Qin Wang to the court, demanding that the contract between the two parties be terminated and the deposit and other corresponding funds be returned twice.
Trial process:
During the trial, Guo Xiaozhen claimed that he paid a property management fee of 65,438+0099 yuan to the property management company from August 65,438+0 in 1965 to July 36, 1965.
During the trial, the court went to the chain home company, and the salesman of the chain home company stated that the overpayment had been paid, but the delivery room office stopped the related business in the whole city. After the three parties knew it, they began to negotiate. The delivery room office verbally informed our company to stop processing, but did not specify the time to resume processing.
Test results:
After hearing the case, the court ruled that:
1. Dissolve the house sales contract relationship between Guo Xiaozhen and Qin Wang;
2. Qin Wang will return the deposit of 50,000 yuan to Guo Xiaozhen within seven days after this judgment takes effect;
3. Within seven days after this judgment came into effect, Qin Wang paid Guo Xiaozhen property fee of 1099 yuan;
Four. Within seven days after this judgment comes into effect, Qin Wang shall pay Guo Xiaozhen the intermediary service fee and guarantee service fee * * * totaling 22,387 yuan.
Analysis of the case of Beijing real estate litigation lawyer Jin Shuang;
Jin Shuangquan, a lawyer of Jingfang Litigation, believes that the sales contract and supplementary agreement signed by Guo Xiaozhen and Qin Wang and the intermediary company in this case are the true intentions of all parties, and their contents do not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and should be legal and effective contracts. In this case, Qin Wang was not notified before June 6, 2005+2065438 because of the internal policy of the central delivery room office. Guo Xiaozhen, as the buyer, has the right to request the termination of the contract in order to avoid further losses, so the court should support his claim. At the same time, Qin Wang obtained the application on July 15, and Guo Xiaozhen sued on July 9, 1965. Guo Xiaozhen has reason to believe that the house cannot be traded normally.
In addition, Qin Wang's failure to obtain the change order within the agreed time limit was caused by the policy adjustment, and the policy of suspending the business of the central delivery room office was beyond the scope that Qin Wang, as an ordinary seller, could expect. Therefore, the termination of the contract cannot be attributed to Qin Wang, who handled the application form in time after the resumption of processing, and there was no breach of contract. Therefore, Guo Xiaozhen's request to double the deposit should not be supported by the court. At the same time, Qin Wang did not violate the contract stipulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Supplementary Agreement, so the liquidated damages claimed by the plaintiff are not supported. In the case of termination of the contract, Qin Wang should return the 50,000 yuan deposit it collected to Guo Xiaozhen, and the property fee paid by Guo Xiaozhen for Qin Wang should also be returned because it failed to purchase the disputed house as scheduled.
At the same time, according to the provisions of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 94 of the Contract Law, only one party delays the performance of the main debt and fails to perform it within a reasonable period after being urged, or one party delays the performance of the debt just to fail to achieve the purpose, which constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. At present, Qin Wang failed to achieve a century-long decline before June 6, 20 15. Guo Xiaozhen should give a warning. If Qin Wang fails to perform within a reasonable period of time, Qin Wang will constitute a fundamental breach of contract, or Qin Wang fails to obtain a change order before June 6, 201May, resulting in the house being unable to be traded from now on, which will constitute a fundamental breach of contract and the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, and the "relevant responsibilities shall be borne" specified in the supplementary agreement. Therefore, the court should not only support Fan Chunxiang's claim that Qin Wang should bear the fundamental liability for breach of contract on the basis of the stipulation in the supplementary agreement that "Party A shall obtain the notice before June 6, 2005+2065438".
To sum up, the court's decision is correct.