Case analysis | “wrong pay” of the purchase

2022-05-12 0 By

↑ : To tell you about the wonderful content of the law “Shanghai High Court” headline number invited lead writer: Ye Ge Civil Court judge assistant Fudan University full-time bachelor of Law, master of the purchase cost is not small, the process is time-consuming and laborious, who to pay for the purchase, would not have been a problem, but sometimes unexpected things followed.Today’s story, from a commercial housing pre-sale contract dispute case.After a field visit, Mr. Li won a small shop in a newly opened real estate project. After careful consideration and without delay, he signed the subscription book at the sales office and paid the deposit by swiping the card through the POS machine. The sales staff issued the receipt of the agency to Mr. Li.More than a month later, Lao Li again came to the sales office to sign a pre-sale contract, and in the same way to pay the first phase of the purchase of the card, sales staff in addition to Lao Li issued a combined deposit developer invoice, but also show a notice.The notice mentioned that the developer commissioned a third party to sell, but the purchase price is fully collected by the developer, buyers do not need to pay additional fees.A few months later, Lao Li came to the sales office again, in the same way to pay the rest of the second phase of the purchase card, sales staff issued the agency’s receipt.Soon, the pre-sale contract agreed to hand over the expiration of the house, just when The old Li full look forward to ready to accept the house, but received the developer sent a lawyer letter, asking to pay the second phase of the house.Lao Li was at a loss…2 has paid or not, dispute into litigation, developers and a housing sales agency agreement cooperation, the whole package of this real estate by the agency to buy out sales.Therefore, the developer did not arrange permanent staff in the sales office, but only sent financial staff with POS machines to collect money when the buyers needed to pay on site.Therefore, Lao Li saw the sales staff for agency personnel.Although Lao Li’s three payments are paid in the sales office by card, but only one of them is collected by the developer’s financial personnel, the other two are collected by the agency company.Unexpected is, agency company interception part of the purchase price lost contact.Developers said, never authorized the company to collect house money, and also issued a notice to Lao Li, Lao Li should know only to pay developers.Lao Li thinks, inform book expression is not clear, and each time he is in the sales office in accordance with the instructions of the sales staff payment, and the agent company for the deposit, developers have also opened invoices to be recognized.In Lao Li’s view, the receiver is the same main body, he has paid the full price of the house.For this, Lao Li sued to the court, asking to terminate the contract, return the full amount of the house.3 trial drink a case of a case, judge us to analyze a specific case of a case comprehensively, the focus of both sides dispute is clearer, whether acting company collects buy a house can regard development business to collect.Read in detail after the first trial and second trial materials, we found that in this real estate other housing external sales, there is also by the agency company to accept the purchase of money after the transfer of developers, developers to the relevant transfer payment to accept, and by the agency company to his name issued a receipt.Collegial court think, from the point of view of ordinary people buying houses, every time in the sales office through the instructions of sales staff to pay a house, to the agency company to collect and turn to pay the deposit, developers have accepted and issued invoices, so Old Li has reason to believe that his payment behavior is in the performance of the pre-sale contract.Below this circumstance, whether development business has acted to collect money to authorize to acting company, unfavorable to common person that buy a house class with exorbitant examination obligation.In the end, the collegial court upheld the verdict of the first instance and supported Lao Li’s appeal.Buying a house is not a trivial matter.Related to the house payment, buyers need to pay more attention, especially to the contract agreement, receivables account, signing materials to carefully confirm, in case of doubt timely verification.Sellers should also strengthen management, estimate risks and improve compliance, rather than rush to pass on risks to ordinary buyers with asymmetric information.Source | Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court portrait photography | Shi Lei Responsible Editor | Zhang Qiaoyu Statement | Reproduced please indicate from “Shanghai High Court”