Today, I received the judgment from the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict (the first trial was at Shenzhen Longgang Court). The judgment ordered the property owner to continue performing the "Shenzhen Second-hand House Reservation and Intermediary Contract," pay the buyer liquidated damages for delay at a daily rate of 0.04% of the transaction price as stipulated in the contract (calculated from May 20, 2015, until the completion of transfer and delivery obligations), and bear all litigation costs (case acceptance fees, preservation fees, etc.).

It should be specifically noted that during the trial, the property owner argued that the house was actually a dual-property unit that could not be separated and was his only residential property, thus it could not be forcibly executed. He voluntarily assumed liability for breach of contract but was unwilling to proceed with the transaction. The court found his defense untenable, dismissed it, and ordered forced transfer.

Based on the recent forced transfer judgment from Longgang Court and knowledge of other cases, it is understood that currently, the Shenzhen Longgang Court, when ordering forced transfer, also fully awards the liquidated damages for delay as stipulated in the contract (without reduction). This is another typical case among the earliest and most comprehensive protection of plaintiff rights in multiple real estate disputes handled by Attorney Wang Tengfeng's team after the "3.30" policy.

I. Basic Case Facts

On March 21, 2015, Zhang, introduced by Shenzhen Wan Property Service Co., Ltd., signed a "Shenzhen Second-hand House Reservation Purchase and Intermediary Service Contract" with Deng and Qi, a married couple. Zhang then paid the deposit strictly according to the contract's specified time and amount. Due to the "3.30" policy causing changes in the real estate market, Deng and Qi openly breached the contract to raise the price. Zhang, with no other choice, was forced to sign a new "Shenzhen Second-hand House Reservation Purchase and Intermediary Service Contract" with Deng and Qi, agreeing to pay the house price into a bank third-party supervision account designated by both parties before May 20, 2015. Zhang repeatedly requested Deng to go to the bank within the contract's time limit to assist with the fund supervision procedures, but Deng reneged again, explicitly stating they would no longer fulfill the contract. Despite Zhang's efforts, along with the third party Shenzhen Wan Property Service Co., Ltd., to negotiate with Deng, Deng consistently refused to perform the contract. With no way to borrow money, Zhang had to entrust the legal team of Wang Tengfeng from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to handle the case. After assignment, lawyers Zhang Qingping and intern Yao Huamei were responsible for the specific representation of this case.

II. Disputed Focus

The focus of the dispute between the two parties in this case is:

(1) Whether to continue performing the contract and enforce the transfer of ownership;

(2) Whether to pay damages for breach of contract.

 

 III. Judgment

After trial by the Longgang District People's Court, Zhang obtained a favorable judgment as follows:

(1) The contract "Shenzhen Second-hand House Reservation Purchase and Intermediary Service Contract" signed by plaintiff Zhang and defendant Deng shall continue to be performed;

(2) Defendant Deng shall assist plaintiff Zhang in transferring the property and deliver the house.

(3) The judgment orders the defendant, Deng, to pay the plaintiff liquidated damages, among other amounts.

 

 

 
 
　　IV. Case Analysis

Although Deng and his spouse raised various defenses in an attempt to confuse the judge, Attorney Wang Tengfeng’s strategy was concise and direct: targeting the core of the contractual agreement between the parties, striking where it hurts most. Under Wang Tengfeng’s guidance, Attorney Zhang Qingping systematically dismantled each of the opposing party’s arguments, such as the claim that Article 16 of the Intermediary Contract allowed the breaching party to unilaterally terminate the contract, and that the compensation violated the principle of good faith. At the same time, they actively steered the judge’s reasoning, focusing on the explicit terms of the contract and the performance of obligations, simplifying the complex while delivering a decisive blow.

Overall, Attorney Wang Tengfeng’s main arguments can be summarized as follows:

(1) The "Shenzhen Second-hand House Reservation Purchase and Intermediary Service Contract" signed by both parties had proper subject matter, genuine expression of intent, and content that did not violate mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations. It is a valid contract with legal binding force on both parties. Deng failed to handle the fund supervision with the plaintiff within the agreed time, repeatedly delaying instead, which constitutes a breach of contract. Subsequently, by feigning negotiation and causing multiple delays that prevented the contract’s purpose from being achieved, Deng committed a fundamental breach and must bear liability for the breach.

(2) The property involved in the case was not mortgaged, and the defendant had full disposal rights over it, with no obstacles preventing its continued performance. The contract is valid, and both parties must strictly adhere to it. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law, "If a party fails to perform its contractual obligations, or performs them in a manner inconsistent with the agreement, it shall bear liability for breach, such as continuing performance, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses." Additionally, Article 110 stipulates that if a party fails to perform a non-monetary obligation or performs it inconsistently with the agreement, the other party may still demand continued performance, except in cases where performance is legally or factually impossible, or the cost of compulsory performance is excessively high. Therefore, Deng is obligated to continue performing the contract. The house should be transferred and delivered to Zhang.

5. Lawyer's Summary of Insights

This case is a typical example of a seller's malicious breach of contract in a second-hand housing transaction. First, Deng refused to cooperate with Zhang in fund supervision and later demanded a price increase to re-sign the contract. Not only did he fail to actively perform the contract, but he also repeatedly delayed. There is every reason to believe that Deng's series of actions were malicious and premeditated. The "3.30" policy led to a sharp rise in housing prices. To seek greater profits, the seller insisted on breaching the contract even after the buyer agreed to a price increase, seriously violating the principle of good faith. Such subjective malice is reprehensible and warrants severe punishment. Second, the property had no mortgage or lease, with the red deed in hand, giving the seller full disposal rights. To prevent the seller from transferring the property to a third party under duress, which could ultimately render the contract's purpose unattainable, we decisively applied to the court for property preservation to protect Zhang's legitimate rights and interests.

Plan carefully before acting. In the current situation of soaring housing prices and frequent malicious breaches by sellers, only by meticulously addressing every step and grasping the critical points to strike decisively can the maximum legitimate interests of the client be secured. This ability to guide the judge's logical reasoning is an indispensable litigation skill in many contract disputes, including commercial and civil cases, and is well worth studying and learning by young lawyers.