Case Details:

During the 2016 National Day holiday, more than 20 cities across the country successively introduced new real estate policies. Suddenly, the situation changed dramatically, and the once arrogant seller's market began to turn into a buyer's market. The regulatory policies touched the "nerve" of the housing market! Under the new policies, disputes between buyers and sellers are bound to surge. For their respective interests, the tactics of competition will inevitably become more intense. Zhiming lawyers provide an example here for sharing and reference.

Looking back in time, in early 2015, citizen Cao XX signed the "Shenzhen Second-hand House Pre-sale and Intermediary Service Contract" with homeowner Deng X on March 21. However, on March 30, 2015, coinciding with the introduction of real estate regulatory policies, Deng X insisted on breaching the contract and refused to sell. Indignant, Cao XX, as a repeat client, once again hired Lawyer Wang Tengfeng's team from Zhiming Law Firm to seek justice, and Lawyer Zhang Qingping was assigned to accept the case and file a lawsuit.

During the litigation process, the defendant, in order to resist performance, submitted a certificate from the property management company to the court, claiming that his sister-in-law lived there and should have the right of first refusal. Lawyer Zhang Qingping raised an objection. After verification, the court confirmed that the defendant's sister-in-law was not a resident and was even unaware of the situation of the involved property building. At the second court session, the defendant, with the cooperation of the property management company, put forward a claim and certificate that the property was currently occupied by his mother-in-law, emphasizing that it was objectively impossible to continue fulfilling the sale obligation, attempting to continue resisting the performance of the house sale contract. Accompanied by the plaintiff, Zhiming lawyers went to the scene to take photos and confirmed that the involved property was piled with clutter, covered in dust, and unoccupied, and submitted this evidence to the court for determination.

Thanks to the effective legal aid provided by Attorney Zhiming, Cao XX won the case in both the first and second instances: not only was the house sale contract ordered to be performed, but the defendant was also ordered to pay 20% of the liquidated damages.

At the same time, given that the defendant colluded with the property management company to repeatedly produce false evidence, obstructing the trial and disrupting court order with severe circumstances, the court accepted the plaintiff’s attorney’s opinion and, in accordance with Article 111 of China’s Civil Procedure Law, imposed a fine of 50,000 RMB each on the person responsible for the false evidence, Deng XX, and the property management company that assisted in the false evidence! The defendant appealed the decision but was rejected, and the fine was upheld.

Case conclusion note:

This house sale contract dispute was a relatively common civil and commercial litigation. The defendant’s breach of contract was clear in fact and sufficient in evidence, with no legitimate reason for intentional default. During the litigation, in order to evade legal liability, the defendant maliciously colluded with the property management company twice to provide false evidence to the court, seriously obstructing the trial. Ultimately, the court issued a fine decision for civil punishment! This serves as a warning to relevant parties: facts must be respected, laws must be followed, skills may be played with, but the law cannot be toyed with, otherwise punishment will follow. This case is an example. (All names above are pseudonyms)