Case of disputes over housing sales contracts between Cui, Yan, Hou, Zhao, and others

【Case Classification】: Disputes over Housing Sales Contracts

【Attorney】: Lawyer Tang Boil

【Entrusted time】: May 2016

Brief Introduction to the Case

On June 9, 2015, the three defendants signed a real estate purchase and sale brokerage agreement with the two plaintiffs through the intermediary introduction of Shanghai Diyuan Real Estate Brokerage Co., Ltd. The two plaintiffs purchased the house of the three defendants located at Room XXX, No. XXX, Lane XXX, Lianhua Road, Minhang District, Shanghai at a price of 2450000 yuan (the same currency below). The two plaintiffs paid a deposit of 30000 yuan as agreed. On June 15, 2015, a deposit of 70000 yuan was paid according to the agreement. On August 30, 2015, both parties signed the "Shanghai Real Estate Sales Contract", and paid 640000 yuan for the house on that day. Both parties reached a consensus and signed a new "Shanghai Real Estate Sales Contract" in March 2016. The two plaintiffs paid an interest of 40000 yuan to the three defendants. As of March 2016, the defendant did not agree to sign the "Shanghai Real Estate Sales Contract". After consultation, both parties signed the "Shanghai Real Estate Sales Contract" with a contract price of 2670000 yuan, which was a full 220000 yuan higher than the intermediary agreement signed and the contract price agreed in August 2015. According to the provisions of the Shanghai Real Estate Purchase and Sale Contract, both parties should complete the transfer and transfer procedures before April 30, 2016. On April 29, 2016, both parties met at an intermediary company. The defendant stated that the bank card used to receive loan payments had been cancelled and requested immediate payment of the remaining house payment. Otherwise, the transfer procedures would not be processed. The payment for this property is clearly agreed to be made through a bank loan. The defendant's request does not comply with the contract agreement. On April 30, 2016, due to the holiday of the trading center, on the first working day after the holiday, on May 3, 2016, the two plaintiffs contacted the three defendants to handle the transfer procedures. On May 4, 2015, the two plaintiffs entrusted lawyers to send a letter to the three defendants, requesting immediate contact with the plaintiffs and handling the transaction transfer procedures. Both parties went to the defendant's home for a detailed discussion about seven days. The plaintiff went, but the defendant did not pay attention. The two plaintiffs and the intermediary have repeatedly urged the three defendants to fulfill the signed contract, but the three defendants have repeatedly delayed. The two plaintiffs believe that the above agreement and contract signed by both parties are legal and valid, and both parties should perform according to the agreement. Therefore, it is reported to the court

Lawyer Analysis

The two plaintiffs and the three defendants have reached a consensus on the purchase and sale of the property in question. In the "Shanghai Real Estate Purchase and Sale Contract" signed by both parties on March 13, 2016, it can be determined that the three defendants, as sellers, will sell the property in question at a net purchase price of 2670000 yuan. All taxes and fees payable by both parties in the transaction will be borne by the two plaintiffs. This sales contract reflects the true intentions of both parties, and the contract is established in accordance with the law and does not violate the law The mandatory provisions on the effectiveness of administrative regulations have contractual binding force on both parties to the contract, and both the plaintiff and defendant shall fully and in good faith fulfill their contractual obligations in accordance with the provisions of the sales contract. The two plaintiffs have already paid the majority of the house payment, and the three defendants have also confirmed receipt of the above-mentioned house payment. The three defendants have confirmed in the court trial that the house purchase and sale contract in this case can continue to be performed, but have stated that they will file a separate lawsuit against the two plaintiffs for breach of contract and hold them responsible. Considering that both the plaintiff and the defendant have the intention to continue performing the contract, it should be considered that the sales transaction between the two parties should continue to be performed. As for the guarantee fee incurred in the process of Legal hold claimed by the two plaintiffs, it is the normal litigation cost of the two plaintiffs and cannot be the basis for the two plaintiffs' claims, so the claim should not be supported.

Judgment Result

After being entrusted by Lawyer Tang Boil as an agent, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation.