Li Mou v. Hu Mou, Yu Mou, Yu Mou house dispute case

[Case classification] : housing sales contract disputes

[Commissioned time] : March 2016

【 Brief introduction 】

On February 27, 2016, the plaintiff and the three defendants signed an intermediary agreement and the "House Sale Contract" to sell the defendant's house in Shanghai to the plaintiff with a transfer price of 5,000,000 yuan. The plaintiff paid a deposit of 100,000 yuan, and after receiving the deposit, the defendant informed the plaintiff that he refused to continue to perform the contract, so the lawsuit was brought to the court.

【 Lawyer analysis 】

The "House sale Contract" signed by the plaintiff and the three defendants is a genuine expression of the intention of both parties, established and effective according to law, and has binding force, and both parties shall perform according to the principle of good faith. In the lawsuit concerning the termination of the contract, both the original and the defendant agreed to terminate the House Sale Contract concluded on February 27, 2016, but there was a dispute between the two parties over the time of the termination of the contract. The plaintiff believes that when the three defendants have not signed the contract with the plaintiff at about a certain signing date of the contract, the plaintiff can determine that the contract is no longer performed. The right to rescind a contract is the right of the parties to a contract to rescind a contract in accordance with a contract or a law. Since the two parties have not agreed on a rescission right, nor have they reached a consensus on the rescission of the contract, the exercise of the rescission right of the contract shall follow the provisions of the law. Before the expiration of the performance period, the three defendants made it clear that the behavior of not performing the main debt is an expression of intention rather than a claim of rights, so the plaintiff enjoys the right to rescind the contract according to law, and the three defendants, as the defaulting party, do not enjoy the right to rescind the contract in this dispute.

According to the law, if a party fails to perform its obligations under the contract or the performance of its obligations under the contract does not conform to the contract, it shall bear the liability for breach of contract such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures or making compensation for the losses. Now the three defendants transferred the house to another person's behavior constitutes a fundamental breach of contract, and should bear the responsibility for breach of contract. The sale contract concluded by the two parties has the main contents of the house sale contract, which is this contract, not an appointment, and it is clear that "the deposit involved in this contract is established to guarantee the smooth performance of the sale transaction", it can be seen that the deposit clause is a breach of a gold clause, rather than a contract of a gold clause. According to the provisions of relevant judicial interpretation, if the deposit of a certain contract is not enough to make up for the loss caused by the breach of contract by one party, and the other party claims compensation in excess of the partial loss of the deposit, the people's court may concurrently, but the sum of the deposit and the compensation for the loss shall not be higher than the loss caused by the breach. Now the plaintiff does not claim deposit liability, but claims compensation for losses, does not violate the spirit of the relevant provisions, and the determination of the amount of compensation should not be higher than the loss caused by the breach of contract. In the course of contract performance, the plaintiff was not at fault for determining the amount of compensation. The three defendants refused to perform the contract and immediately transferred the house in order to obtain more transfer proceeds, which was in bad faith. The transfer price of the parties shall include the ancillary facilities, equipment and fixed interior decoration of the premises. Although the three defendants believed that $200,000 of the transfer price of a house with an outsider was compensation for house decoration and facilities, they also contracted with an outsider for a house with a transfer price of $4.2 million and compensation for the renovation of $1,000,000. The compensation for decoration and facilities claimed by the three defendants is not compensation in the real sense. Therefore, the plaintiff performed approximately without fault. In the process of real estate transaction, especially under the overall rising price of the market, the three defendants should foresee the losses that may be caused to the other party if their own party defaults when entering into the contract. The housing transactions involved in the litigation coincided with the rapid rise and change of second-hand housing prices in the city in a short period of time, and even personnel with experience and expertise in the field may not be able to accurately predict the price trend. Therefore, the ability of the three defendants to predict the recent changes in housing prices at the time of entering into contracts is one of the factors that the court considers in determining the amount of compensation. On the next day after signing the sales contract, the three defendants reneged, expressly refused to perform the contract, and did not put forward additional conditions such as price increase for performance. After knowing the expression of intention, the plaintiff could either demand the termination of the contract or claim to continue to perform the contract.

【 Verdict 】

Represented by lawyer Chen Zhijuan, the court ordered the defendants Hu Mou, Yu Mou and Yu Mou to return the plaintiff Li Mou's house purchase deposit of 100,000 yuan within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, and compensate the plaintiff Li mou for the loss of 230,000 yuan.