I suggest you ask a lawyer.
As a senior real estate lawyer with more than ten years' experience, Jin Shuangquan, a real estate lawyer, has handled a lot of real estate disputes and accumulated a lot of experience in handling real estate cases. Now real estate lawyer Jin Shuangquan has adapted these cases into real estate disputes. This case is a real estate case that infringes the lessee's preemptive right. Now I adapt this case into a case, hoping to help you.
(In order to protect the privacy of the parties, all parties in this article use pseudonyms. )
Case introduction:
First of all, the original message said:
Chen Xin and Hao Song claimed that on September 9, 2065438, Wang Jianguo and I signed a contract for the purchase and sale of Beijing stock houses through an intermediary company. According to the contract, we will sell the disputed house to Wang Jianguo with a house price of 3170,000 and a down payment of120,000. Wang Jianguo borrowed 2 million yuan from the bank, and will make a down payment after completing the loan procedures. On the day of signing the contract, Wang Jianguo paid a deposit of1.2000 yuan. Later, on 20 1510.9 15, we cooperated with Wang Jianguo to go to the bank for a face-to-face interview, but Wang Jianguo failed to pay the down payment as agreed in the contract. On October 2, 20 15438+0 15/kloc-0, both parties signed an agreement on understanding the contract, and we paid a deposit of 24,000 yuan as agreed. However, due to Wang Jianguo's failure to cooperate with the online signing procedures, the termination agreement could not be fulfilled.
Later, we learned that the third-party chain home company completed the online signing with Wang Jianguo on our behalf, and the transaction price of the online signing house was 2.88 million yuan, which was deemed as an act of tax evasion by signing a yin-yang contract and should be deemed invalid. Therefore, the court is requested to order: 1. Confirm that the Purchase and Sales Contract and Supplementary Agreement of Beijing Stocking House signed by the original defendant and the defendant on October 27th, 20 151was dissolved. 2. The online signing contract between the original defendants was invalid, and the defendant Wang Jianguo paid a penalty of 300,000 yuan. 3. Both the original defendant and the defendant continued to perform the termination agreement signed on 201kloc-0/654381October 27th, and the defendant Wang Jianguo cooperated to cancel the online signing. We paid the defendant Wang Jianguo an agency fee of 50,000 yuan.
Secondly, the defendant argued that:
Wang Jianguo argued that the two plaintiffs' claims have no factual and legal basis, and I disagree with the plaintiffs' claims. During the performance of the contract, it was not that I delayed the payment of the purchase price, but that the plaintiff refused to accept the down payment in violation of the contract, and at the same time the plaintiff did not deliver the house as agreed in the contract. The plaintiff not only failed to perform the contractual obligations, but also refused to perform the obligation of returning the agency fee determined in the Termination Agreement. The termination of the agreement shall be deemed invalid, and the plaintiff shall bear the legal responsibility for violating the main contract.
As the observant party of the contract, I have the right to ask the plaintiff to continue to perform the contract. The price error of the plaintiff's entrusted agent Chen and the online signing transaction does not affect the validity of the contract. Therefore, I think that the Beijing stock house sales contract and supplementary agreement between me and the plaintiff have not been terminated; I disagree with the plaintiff's other claims.
The third-party chain company said: If both parties reach an agreement, our company can cooperate with the follow-up procedures. Our company now confirms that the transaction process between the two parties is as follows: On September 20th15 19, the original and the defendant signed the Beijing Stock House Purchase and Sales Contract and the supplementary agreement. The agreed house price is 301.7 million yuan, and the down payment is 1.654.38+0.7 million yuan, of which the down payment is 1.2 million yuan. The down payment shall be delivered through fund custody after handling the loan formalities.
2065438+On September 29th, 2005, with the authorization of both parties, our company handled the online signing procedures for both parties, and the authorization of online signing was stipulated in the intermediary service contract. 10 year125 October, with a loan of 2 million yuan from Wang Jianguo. Due to the unclear agreement on how to pay the house price in the contract, the two parties reached a new supplementary agreement on the down payment on June 2 165438, stipulating that the down payment would be paid in two phases, with Wang Jianguo paying 500,000 yuan before June 7, the plaintiff giving the house key to Wang Jianguo after receiving 50 yuan, and Wang Jianguo paying the remaining 658,000 yuan on February 29, 65433.
1October 7 165438 Wang Jianguo contacted our company and demanded to pay 500,000 yuan to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's agent Chen refused to accept the 500,000 yuan, and said that it was necessary to pay 1 170000 in one lump sum before agreeing to hand over the key and go through the transfer formalities. After mediation by our company, both parties agreed to sign the Agreement on Termination of Contract, stipulating that after the plaintiff paid a double deposit of 24,000 yuan and an agency fee of 50,000 yuan, the three parties cooperated to handle the cancellation procedures of online signing. However, the two plaintiffs only paid a deposit of 24,000 yuan, but failed to pay the agency fee of 50,000 yuan as scheduled. Our company communicated with Chen, the agent of two plaintiffs, for many times, and the negotiation failed. After the agreed date 10 day, Chen said that he would pay the remaining 50,000 yuan, but Wang Jianguo did not agree to accept the money and thought that the plaintiff should be investigated for legal responsibility according to the dissolution agreement.
Three. The court found that:
In addition to the statements of the original defendant and the third party, the court found that Wang Jianguo, Chen Xin and Song Hao went through the online signing formalities on September 29th, 20 15, and the online signing price was 2.88 million yuan. Subsequently, both parties went to the bank to go through the loan examination and approval procedures, and on 20 15, 10, a loan of 2 million yuan was approved in Wang Jianguo Bank.
On October 2, 20 1 165438+2005/kloc-0, the original defendant signed a supplementary agreement with a third-party chain company, stipulating that Wang Jianguo would pay 500,000 yuan to the two plaintiffs before October 7, 2015438+065438+/kloc-0. Wang Jianguo paid the remaining down payment of 658,000 yuan to the two plaintiffs at the latest on February 20, 20 15, and went through the transfer procedures. If Wang Jianguo fails to pay the remaining down payment of 658,000 yuan before February 20, 2065, 438+05,654,38+05, it will be regarded as Wang Jianguo's breach of contract and the money will not be refunded. After the signing of the supplementary agreement, Wang Jianguo contacted the third-party chain home company on October 7, 201/kloc-0 and demanded to pay 500,000 yuan for the house, but the two plaintiffs refused to charge 500,000 yuan for the house, saying that they had to pay1170,000 yuan in a lump sum before agreeing to turn over the key. The original defendant and the defendant did not actually perform the supplementary agreement signed on October 2, 20 15+065438/KLOC-0.
After that, the original defendant and the defendant reached a termination agreement under the mediation of the chain company. In the agreement, both parties agreed that the Chain Home Company would cooperate to cancel the online signing procedures, and at the same time, the two plaintiffs paid Wang Jianguo a deposit of 24,000 yuan and an agency fee of 50,000 yuan. If the two plaintiffs fail to pay all 74,000 yuan as agreed, the termination agreement will be invalid, and Wang Jianguo has the right to pursue the legal responsibility of the responsible party according to the signed contract and supplementary agreement.
On the day of signing the agreement, the two plaintiffs paid Wang Jianguo a double deposit of 24,000 yuan according to the agreement. However, the two did not pay the agency fee of 50,000 yuan as agreed. After the expiration of the agreed time limit, the two plaintiffs offered to pay the money, but were rejected by Dinghai, demanding that the legal responsibilities of the two plaintiffs be investigated.
During the trial, Wang Jianguo said that in order to continue to perform the contract, he could pay all the house purchase price of RMB 3 1.7 million in one lump sum, and provided the court with the corresponding property ownership certificate. At the same time, the defendant Wang Jianguo agreed to double the deposit of 24,000 yuan collected by the two plaintiffs.
The court also found that the owner of the disputed house was Chen Xin and the owner of * * * was Hao Song. At present, the house is not mortgaged and sealed up.
Fourth, the court ruled that:
Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court ruled after trial:
Reject the demands of Song Hao and Chen Xin.
Verb (abbreviation of verb) Comments on the case of Beijing real estate lawyer Jin Shuangquan;
Jin Shuangquan, a professional real estate lawyer in Beijing, believes that legally established contracts should be protected by law.
In this case, Chen Xin, Hao Song and Wang Jianguo signed the Beijing Stock House Purchase and Sales Contract and two subsequent supplementary agreements, which all represent the true intention of both parties and do not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. They are all legal and valid contracts.
In view of the focus issues involved in this case, Lawyer Jin analyzed as follows:
1. Is the online signing agreement signed by both parties valid?
In the trial of this case, the two plaintiffs claimed that the original defendant and the defendant did not sign the online signing, but the online signing was signed by a third-party chain company without its consent. The online signing contract is a yin-yang contract for tax evasion and should be deemed invalid.
Lawyer Jin believes that according to the materials submitted by the original defendant and the defendant who went to the bank for face-to-face loan signing, the online signing contract was signed by the agent Chen entrusted by the two plaintiffs, which confirmed the online signing contract. Therefore, the two plaintiffs' claim that the online signing contract without their consent is invalid is unfounded and should not be supported.
In addition, regarding the inconsistency between the price in the online signing contract and the actual transaction price, Mr. Jin believes that the real transaction price of the house should be 3 1.7 million, not 2.88 million signed in the online signing contract. Although the price clause in the online signing contract is invalid, the invalidity of the price clause does not affect the validity of other clauses, nor does it necessarily lead to the invalidity of the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the online signing price is inconsistent with the actual transaction price is unfounded in law and should not be supported.
Second, whether the contract is terminated or not, and whether Wang Jianguo should pay the plaintiff the liquidated damages.
According to Article 93 of the Contract Law: "The parties may terminate the contract through consultation."
In this case, the original defendant signed a termination agreement during the performance of the contract, stipulating the conditions for the termination of the contract and the travel obligations of both parties. According to the agreement, all contracts and supplementary agreements previously signed by the original defendant and the third party will be invalid after Wang Jianguo receives all 74,000 yuan paid by the plaintiff.
Lawyer Jin believes that according to the agreement, the condition for the termination of the contract is that the two plaintiffs pay all 74,000 yuan on time and in full. However, during the performance of the agreement, the two plaintiffs failed to pay all the money on time and in full, which failed to meet the conditions for the termination of the contract agreed by both parties, so the house sales contract and supplementary agreement between the original defendants were not terminated. The plaintiff claims that the contract and supplementary agreement between the two parties have been dissolved, which is unfounded and untenable, and should not be supported.
Similarly, according to the agreement, if the two plaintiffs fail to pay all 74,000 yuan on time as agreed, this agreement is invalid, and Wang Jianguo still has the right to pursue the legal responsibility of the responsible party according to the previous contract and supplementary agreement. Lawyer Jin believes that during the performance of the agreement, the agreement is invalid because the two plaintiffs failed to pay in full and on time. The two plaintiffs' request that Wang Jianguo continue to fulfill the agreement, cancel the online signing procedures and charge 50,000 agency fees is unfounded in law and should not be supported.
In addition, the two plaintiffs believe that the defendant Wang Jianguo breached the contract by signing a false online signing contract, and should pay a penalty of 300,000 yuan. According to the facts ascertained by the court, Wang Jianguo did not breach the contract during the performance, but Chen refused to pay the house price as agreed in the contract, so the failure to pay the house price as agreed was caused by two plaintiffs, not Wang Jianguo. The online signing contract was completed by a third-party chain company, and the house transaction price was inconsistent with the actual price, which had nothing to do with Wang Jianguo.
To sum up, the plaintiff's claim for Wang Jianguo to pay 300,000 yuan as liquidated damages on the grounds of Wang Jianguo's breach of contract has no factual and legal basis and should not be supported.
To sum up, the court's decision is correct.