School district properties do not guarantee school enrollment; an invitation to treat is not an offer.
[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
Case review
Mr. and Mrs. Chen were both born in remote rural areas. Through hard study, they eventually got into college. After getting married, they had a son. Once the child was born, Mr. and Mrs. Chen deeply felt the importance of education for their child and hoped that he could enjoy quality educational resources. Therefore, buying a high-quality school district house became their only criterion for purchasing a home. However, before visiting properties, they had to investigate the nearby schools. During this period, they heard from friends that a new real estate project had opened in a certain area, which fell within the catchment area of a key primary school. After learning about the property, Mr. and Mrs. Chen purchased the "school district house" that advertised access to the key primary school.
However, when the house was handed over, Chen and his wife heard that the school was adjusted. After implementation, they learned that the property purchased was not within the school district of the key primary school. Therefore, Chen and his wife found the developer's theory. The developer said that he did talk to the school about the project, and the cooperation intention was very positive and basically clear, so he made a promotion in the publicity of the real estate at that time. However, whether we can go to school in the end depends on the division of the education department. The current situation is not what we want to see. As far as the house is concerned, we are also priced according to relevant policies and regulations, and there is no inflated price because it belongs to the school district. Chen and his wife believed that there was false propaganda in the building delivered by the developer, and in a fit of pique, they sued the developer to the court for compensation for economic losses.
[1] Court Opinion
The judge, after hearing the case, held that the pre-sale contract for commercial housing signed by the plaintiff and the defendant was a true expression of the intentions of both parties, did not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and was legal and valid. They should fully perform their obligations as stipulated in the contract. In this case, the advertisements and promotional materials released by the defendant regarding the houses and related facilities within the planned area of the commercial housing are all invitations to offer. Where their contents are inconsistent with the pre-sale contract, the annexes and this supplementary agreement, the pre-sale contract, the annexes and this supplementary agreement shall prevail. Regarding whether the plaintiff's son can attend a key primary school, the two parties in the contract did not make any agreement on the school that the children of the residents in this community would attend, and the defendant did not make any commitment or guarantee. Moreover, the content regarding key school district housing was not included in the contract. The plaintiff's demand for the defendant to compensate for the losses caused by his son's inability to attend a key primary school was not supported by the court. Therefore, the court ruled in accordance with the law to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit request.
[1] The author's perspective
When buying a house, many homebuyers are attracted by the community facilities introduced by sales staff. However, with the adjustment of regional planning, the zoning of some school districts, subways, shopping malls, and other facilities may change, causing the homebuyer's purpose for buying the house to fail. Therefore, it is reminded that when buying a house, one must be vigilant, proactively verify information through effective channels, make decisions based on actual housing needs, and not be misled by false advertising from developers.
