Lufa case [2024] 280
In the second-hand housing transaction, the buyer and the seller should abide by the relevant laws and regulations, and clarify their respective rights and obligations. Can the buyer's claim for double the seller's deposit be sustained?
Brief facts of the case
Lao Zhang is over 70 years old, in order to buy a house to enjoy his old age, many house visits, which lasted for several months, and finally took a fancy to a house under Xiao Song's name, and the two parties signed the "House Sale and Purchase Contract" in November 2023 after several negotiations. The contract stipulates that Lao Zhang shall pay a deposit of 30,000 yuan to Xiao Song on the day of signing the contract, and if Lao Zhang breaches the contract, the deposit will not be refunded, and if Xiao Song breaches the contract, the deposit shall be returned to Lao Zhang twice; Xiao Song promised that there was no ownership dispute over the property under this contract, and there was no unnatural death such as homicide in the house, and then Lao Zhang paid a deposit of 30,000 yuan to Xiao Song according to the agreement. The day after the contract was signed, Lao Zhang learned through his neighbors that the father of Xiao Song, the original owner of the house involved in the case, had jumped to his death in the building eight years ago. Lao Zhang believed that his purchase of the house was for the elderly, and Xiao Song did not take the initiative to inform Lao Song of the fact of his death, which constituted fraud by deliberately concealing the facts, so Lao Zhang sued Xiao Song to the court, requesting an order to revoke the house sales contract involved in the case, and Xiao Song returned the deposit to Lao Zhang double.
Xiao Song argued that his father jumped from the window of the corridor due to unbearable illness and that it was not an unnatural death that occurred in the house, so he had no obligation to inform and there was no fraud.
Heard by the courts
After the trial, the court held that contract fraud refers to the act of one party to a contract deliberately concealing the truth or fabricating facts, so that the other party to the contract enters into a contract contrary to its true intentions. In this case, the contract involved in the case stipulated that Xiao Song promised that there had been no unnatural death in the "house" involved in the case. According to the meaning of the clause, "inside the house", as a clear expression, should refer to the part of the house that can be used by the owner of the house within the entrance door of the house, according to the literal meaning of the ordinary person. If Lao Song jumped to his death from within the entrance door of the house involved in the case, according to the contract, Xiao Song should have the obligation to take the initiative to inform Lao Zhang of the facts, and according to the evidence presented by the parties and the police records obtained by the court, it cannot be proved that Lao Song jumped from the house involved in the case and fell to his death.
The focus of the dispute between the two parties is whether Lao Song's jumping off the building is considered an unnatural death, and whether Xiao Song should take the initiative to inform him. After the trial, the court held that, in light of the specific facts of this case, it should not be determined that Xiao Song had committed fraud, mainly for the following reasons: first, the two parties had made the absence of an unnatural death incident a contract clause promised by Xiao Song, but the clause was clearly agreed to be "inside the house" and not "outside the house"; Second, after signing the contract, Lao Zhang did not inform him that the occurrence of an unnatural death "outside the house" was an important fact affecting whether he purchased the house; Third, the old Song family could not bear the pain and chose to commit suicide by jumping off the building, rather than being killed by him or committing suicide because of resentment and entanglement with others, so the house involved in the case was not the so-called "murderous house" in the traditional sense. It has been more than eight years since the signing of the contract, and this kind of negative event of non-serious and unnatural death should be gradually diluted with the passage of time, and should not be permanently used as a negative label for the house involved in the case, and Xiao Song should be required to voluntarily disclose the obligation at all times.
According to the law, a major misunderstanding refers to an act in which the perpetrator causes the consequences of the act to be contrary to his or her own intentions and causes greater losses due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the act, the other party, the variety, quality, specification, and quantity of the subject matter. When Lao Zhang signed the contract, he took it for granted that no such incident had occurred in the house involved in the case, and Lao Zhang's understanding was different from the real situation, which should be a wrong understanding. In this case, Lao Zhang, as an elderly person, will be more sensitive to his understanding of life and death. The fact that he did not purchase the house as soon as he learned of the incident reflected that the signing of the contract for the sale and purchase of the house involved in the case was contrary to his true intentions. Therefore, Lao Zhang's act of signing the house sale contract involved in the case with Xiao Song should be found to be a major misunderstanding.
According to Article 157 of the Civil Code, when the house sale contract involved in the case was revoked, Lao Zhang's litigation request for Xiao Song to return the deposit of 30,000 yuan paid by him had a factual and legal basis, and the court supported it. Because the contract involved in the case was revoked due to a major misunderstanding and was not terminated due to the breach of contract by the parties to the contract, the court did not support Lao Zhang's request for Xiao Song to return another double deposit of 30,000 yuan.
In the end, the court ruled to revoke the contract involved in the case in accordance with the law, and Xiao Song returned the deposit of 30,000 yuan to Lao Zhang, rejecting Lao Zhang's other litigation claims. After the judgment was rendered, both parties accepted the judgment and dismissed the lawsuit, and the judgment has now taken effect.
What the judge said
People always choose the best fortune to live in the houses they live in in their daily lives, which is in line with human nature and belongs to the legitimate desire to pursue a better life, and the law and society should respect and maintain such good customs. Although a house that has been fatalized does not constitute an obstacle to the material use of the house itself, it will affect the psychology of the user, and then affect the market value of the house, and ultimately it will inevitably affect the transaction of the house.
Under normal circumstances, if there is an unnatural death in a transaction, it will inevitably affect the value of the house and the buyer's willingness to buy. In accordance with the principle of good faith and respect for traditional customs, the seller has the obligation to truthfully disclose the unnatural death to the buyer, and if the seller fails to inform the seller that the house is actually a "murderous house", the buyer may, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, claim that the seller has fraudulently caused the buyer to purchase the house contrary to its true intentions, and may claim to rescind the contract and require the seller to bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
Before buying a home, you should try to understand the historical background of the home, including whether there have been any major events like this one. If the price of the house is much lower than the market price, it is necessary to investigate the reason for the low price, because the price is too low may mean that the house is in trouble. Choose a reliable agent and conduct the transaction through a reputable and qualified agency to ensure that they will conduct proper checks on the background of the property and disclose it truthfully. The buyer can also require the landlord to accurately stipulate the disclosure clause in the contract, which can urge the landlord to disclose the property information, and can also allow the buyer to rely on the basis for seeking legal remedies in the event of a dispute. In addition, if the owner has had such a situation in his house, he should uphold the principle of good faith and take the initiative to explain the situation to the buyer. When intermediary companies and brokers provide intermediary services to consumers, they shall uphold the principle of good faith for the content that is not obligated to inform, truthfully investigate, understand and reflect the situation according to the requirements of consumers, and shall not make arbitrary promises without investigation, or provide false information or make false promises to mislead or deceive consumers into transactions.