Song and Haihua (case of dispute over the contract for the sale of real estate and commercial housing)

Plaintiff Song, male,1born on March 26th, 964, Han nationality, unemployed, lives in Tawan Street, xx, Huanggu District, Shenyang.

Defendant Liaoning Haihua Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. ..

I. Basic facts of the case

On August 27th, 20001,the plaintiff and the defendant signed a commercial housing sales contract (contract number: 0316-0013-j77). According to the contract, the plaintiff purchased the house and garage located at Room 242, No.72, Yanhe Street, James J.S.Wong District at a price of 2,845.70 yuan per square meter. Article 7 of the contract stipulates the time and amount of payment. Pay in two installments, with the first payment of 106950 yuan before August 27th, 2006 and the second payment of 240000 yuan before September 27th, 2006. The contract also stipulates the liability for breach of contract. Article 18 of the contract also stipulates property management. After the contract is signed, both parties fulfill their obligations as scheduled. After the plaintiff moved in, he believed that the defendant had not fully fulfilled the contract truthfully. When the heating was connected to the grid in 2002, the commercial house was not connected to the heating network. The plaintiff believed that this seriously violated his rights and interests, so he sued the hospital on June 5438+1October 9, 2003.

Second, the court's determination and judgment

The court of first instance held that the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and legal persons are protected by law. On August 27th, 20001year, the original defendant and the defendant signed a commercial housing sales contract (contract No.0316-0013-077). The plaintiff bought an existing house, and both parties have fulfilled their respective obligations according to the contract. The plaintiff has moved into the disputed house. Regarding the plaintiff's claim that the defendant breached the contract and demanded that the defendant compensate for the loss of 5,000 yuan, the plaintiff did not propose which clause of the contract the defendant violated, so there is no factual basis, and our court will not support it; Regarding the heating problem raised by the plaintiff, the Heating Contract signed by the plaintiff and Haihua Property Management Office in Huanggu District of Shenyang and the commercial housing sales contract in this case belong to two different legal relationships, and the plaintiff should file a separate lawsuit; Regarding the plaintiff's claim that the defendant's property was charged at random, the court did not support it because there was no evidence after investigation. Regarding the plaintiff's claim that the poster propaganda and promise made by the defendant at the time of sales were not realized, it was considered that the defendant breached the contract. After examination, our court believes that the commercial housing sales contract signed by the original and the defendant does not contain this content. Therefore, poster publicity and commitment are not the terms of the contract that both parties must abide by. Poster propaganda is only an invitation to conclude a contract, and its content is not legally binding unless it is written into the terms of the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim has no legal basis, and this court will not support it. Regarding the plaintiff's claim that the defendant promised to install electronic doors and did not perform 24-hour heating, it was fraudulent. Upon examination by our court, this clause was not found in the commercial housing sales contract signed by the original and the defendant, so our court did not support the plaintiff's claim. Regarding the plaintiff's claim that the defendant didn't install a video intercom, only a monitor was installed in May 2002, not a video intercom door. The commercial housing sales contract signed by the original and the defendant did not clearly stipulate what type of intercom phone or monitor to install. Therefore, the defendant did not violate the terms of the contract, so the defendant should not be deemed to have breached the contract. The plaintiff claimed that the heating was always poor from 200/kloc-0 to 2002, and the property fee was not returned until one year after the demolition mortgage payment of 1000 yuan was collected. It was not appropriate for the defendant to collect the heating fee for two years at one time, and it should be paid once a year, which was not the same legal relationship with the commercial housing sales contract dispute in this case. The plaintiff may claim the rights alone or report the settlement to the relevant departments. The plaintiff Yu Qing, Ma, Zhang Xianzhuo, Li Yabin,,, Han and other witnesses testified in court. The above witnesses all reported heating problems and housing quality problems. But what it said was the witness's own housing problem, which did not confirm the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, according to the relevant interpretation of the Supreme People's Court's Interim Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure, the above witness testimony cannot prove that the plaintiff's house has quality problems. In addition, the defendant has submitted to the court a copy of the project quality certificate and the completion acceptance record of No.2 Building 1, which can be used as evidence in this case. The plaintiff claims that the quality of the disputed house is unqualified, and there is no corresponding evidence to prove it, so our court will not support the plaintiff's claim. Reject the plaintiff's claim.

(The above answers were published on 2014-07-11. Please refer to the actual situation for the current relevant procurement policies. )

When buying a new house, go to Sohu Focus.