Is the property management agreement only binding on the owners?

Viewpoint 1: The effective owner of a contract should perform it according to law.

According to Article 280 of the Civil Law, the decisions of the owners' assembly or owners' committee are legally binding on the owners. If the decision made by the owners' congress or the owners' committee infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the owners, the infringed owners may request the people's court to revoke it. According to this understanding, as long as the decisions made by the owners' assembly or the owners' committee are legally binding on the owners in principle; If the owner thinks that the relevant decision has infringed upon his legitimate rights and interests, the relief provided by law can apply to the people's court for cancellation of the decision, but in this case, the owner needs to pay the corresponding rights protection fee and bear the corresponding burden of proof, and even if the decision of the owners' Committee is successfully cancelled, it does not mean that the contract is cancelled.

The main basis of this view is that the owners' committee is elected by the owners' assembly according to law and performs its duties on behalf of the owners, and the decisions of the owners' committee are binding on the owners. As long as the property service contract signed by the owners' committee does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, it should be regarded as legal and effective. The signing of the contract belongs to the decision of the owners' committee and is legally binding on the owners. Whether the owners' committee is authorized by the owners' congress or not is an internal legal relationship between the owners' committee and the owners, and does not affect the validity of the contract signed by the owners' committee. If the owner thinks that the decision of the owners' committee has infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the owner, he may request the court to revoke it, but before the decision of the owners' committee is revoked, the decision of the owners' committee is still binding on the owner.

Viewpoint 2: The uncertainty of effectiveness must be approved by the owners' meeting.

According to the provisions of the Civil Code and the Property Management Regulations, the selection and dismissal of property service enterprises is a matter decided by the owners, and the owners' committee performs the duties of signing property service contracts with the property service enterprises selected by the owners' congress on behalf of the owners. If the owners' committee concludes, changes or terminates the realty service contract without authorization, it shall be deemed that the conclusion, change or termination of the realty service contract by the owners' committee has no effect on all owners.

That is to say, with the authorization of the owners' congress, the owners' committee carries out civil legal acts in the name of all owners, and the relevant civil legal acts are valid for all owners, and the relevant legal consequences shall be borne by the owners. However, the owners' committee and the realty service enterprise signed the realty service contract, without the unanimous decision of the owners' congress and the authorization of the owners' congress, they have no right to act as agents and have no effect on the owners.

Viewpoint 3: Contracts that are not selected according to law are invalid.

According to this view, one of the prerequisites for judging whether the contract signed by the owners' committee and the property service enterprise is legally binding on the owners is that the owners' assembly has selected the property service enterprise according to law, otherwise, the property service contract is not legally binding on the owners.

Judging from the constitutive requirements of the property service contract that is legally binding on the owners, according to the provisions of the Civil Code, the property service contract concluded between the owners' committee and the property service providers selected by the owners' congress according to law is legally binding on the owners. That is to say, the realty service contract signed by the owners' committee on behalf of all owners is not valid for the owners, but it must be a realty service enterprise selected by the owners' congress according to law, and the realty service contract signed by the owners' committee and it can be legally binding on the owners.

The Civil Code stipulates the exception of contract relativity and contract relativity, that is, a contract established according to law is legally binding only on the parties, except as otherwise provided by law. In principle, the contract concluded by both parties is only legally binding on both parties. If it is to be legally binding on subjects other than the parties to a contract, it must be clearly stipulated by law. Judging from the conclusion of the property service contract, the owners' committee is the real party to conclude a contract with the property service enterprise. If it is to be legally binding on the third party who did not participate in the conclusion of the contract, there should be clear legal provisions.

The Civil Code makes it clear that one of the prerequisites for the property service contract to be legally binding on the owners is the legality of the hiring procedure, that is, according to the provisions of the Civil Code, the owners will vote for the hiring of the property service enterprises through the corresponding proportion of the owners' meeting. Only the contract signed by the owners' committee and the property service enterprise through legal procedures can be legally binding on the owners. Only through legal procedures can it be presumed that it can represent the true meaning of the owner, otherwise it cannot be considered as embodying the true meaning of the owner and cannot be legally binding on the owner.