Program reply: Why can't I recover the overdue penalty after taking the key?

In the program, I once said that the owner of tulip community took the key to repossess the building, and after repossession, he could not continue to pursue the penalty for overdue delivery. In addition, some owners expressed other views on the Internet. They think so: it is true that the transfer of ownership of houses, including the handover of keys, is an important standard, but what is the standard of house delivery? Is it the standard of housing delivery that does not meet the agreed housing delivery? I don't think so. Of course, it is best not to take the keys, but now the owners and housing developers who take the keys can damage the rights of the owners, which is in line with the law. What kind of law is this? Besides, the owner took the key, didn't sign it and didn't pay the property fee. What makes you think the owner agrees to hand over the house? I also feel that your developers, including the property, didn't hand over the keys. Therefore, in the later actions, we must defend our rights according to law, and don't entangle some small problems, which will lead to the dispersion of all rights holders. Moreover, the administrative organs have clearly prevented developers from handing over houses on TV. Is that a legal birth? Before answering this question, I think it is necessary to understand that the agreement in the contract law is greater than the statutory principle. The contract concluded between the parties is based on agreement in accordance with the general principles of civil law, which is "illegal without agreement" and "agreement is greater than law". As long as it is reached voluntarily within the scope permitted by law, it is a law between both parties and is binding on both parties, that is, the agreement is greater than legal, but it does not harm the public interest and the legitimate interests of the third party. The purchase of commercial housing and the agreed delivery conditions are within the scope permitted by national laws. Whether it is legal or agreed in your original contract, the delivery conditions are two copies and one form. If you don't get one form, the owner has the right to refuse. Please note, however, that the owner took the key, and according to the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation, he obtained the actual possession of the commercial house, that is, the actual repossession of the building, which recognized that the developer had not obtained the delivery conditions of two books and one form at present, that is, the original contract was actually changed. According to the principle that agreement is greater than law, this delivery is effective. As the owner, we should know the legal problems in the sale and delivery of commercial housing, and we can't take "ignorance, ignorance" as the defense. As for the positioning of the administrative organ, it is determined that it does not have the conditions to hand over the house at present from the perspective of administrative management and industry management. This determination can be used as the basis for the administrative organ to punish it, but it cannot be used as the basis for changing the fact that the owner has taken over the house. When defending rights, owners should not confuse administrative relations with contractual relations, and treat administrative management and contract disputes as one thing, which can only make them fall into the misunderstanding of safeguarding rights. In addition, it is untenable to say that you don't recognize the repossession without signing the handover form. Don't forget that the fooled owner paid the property fee, which is double insurance for the developer. Of course, this is only a penalty for late delivery. Even if the house is taken over, the owner can still claim rights for other parts of the actual house that are inconsistent with the contract.