The owner said that the mother-child door of the agreed-upon house was changed to a single door. Developer: I just took over the deal.

Wang Qing, intern of Carrier Finance Network/Written

Recently, Carrier Finance Network From the judgment documents, we learned that Cixi Jianian Hongdi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as \”Jianian Hongdi Real Estate\”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fantasia Group Co., Ltd., was sentenced in the first instance for the defendant in a house purchase and sale dispute. It was clearly agreed that the mother-child door became a single door. The owner Wang had no choice but to take Jianian Hongdi Real Estate to court. What explanation will the developer give in court?

The owner said that the developer changed the mother-child door into a single door to save costs

Owner Wang said that on June 22, 2013, he signed a \”Commercial Housing Sales Contract\” with the former Hengyuan Real Estate Co., Ltd., agreeing to purchase a commercial housing Used for residence. On July 26, 2018, Jianian Hongdi Real Estate won the property through judicial auction and re-signed the \”Commercial Housing Sales Contract\” with itself.

After delivering the house, Wang discovered that in order to save costs, Jianian Hongdi Real Estate had designed the subdivision with a width of 1224mm. The mother door was arbitrarily reduced to a single door with a door width of only 1050mm.

Wang believes that the size of the door opening of the house delivered is inconsistent with that planned in the contract, and Jianian Hongdi Real Estate should bear the corresponding liability. Liability for breach of contract. Therefore, he took the developer to court and asked it to compensate him for economic losses of 3,000 yuan.

Jianian Hongdi Real Estate said the door opening size is 1050mm

Jianian Hongdi Real Estate argued that the two parties did not agree on a clear size for the door opening in the drawings attached to the contract, and measured the door opening size in the drawings using the scale method to be 1050mm, so it did not breach the contract. .

Besides, this is a project developed and constructed by Hengyuan Real Estate Co., Ltd. I just continue the construction as it is, and the size of the door opening is designed The legal compliance has also passed the completion inspection. Wang has already taken possession of the house and has no reason to hold himself responsible.

The court supported Wang’s claim in the first instance

As found by the court, on July 26, 2018, due to the bankruptcy of the original Hengyuan Real Estate Co., Ltd., Jianian Hongdi Real Estate won the property through judicial auction, and then re-signed a \”Commercial Housing Sales Contract\” with Wang. Except for the agreed delivery time of January 31, 2016, this contract is basically the same as the previous contract.

The court held that Wang and the original Hengyuan Real Estate Co., Ltd. agreed on the door opening size in the contract, although Jianian Hongdi Real Estate agreed in accordance with The house is collected as it is, but according to the coordination meeting after the bankruptcy bidding and the contents of the \”Commercial House Sales Contract\”, it can be determined that except for the delivery conditions, the other terms remain unchanged, and the attached drawing should also be one of the contract terms.

Even though the contract signed between Jianian Hongdi Real Estate and Wang did not indicate that the size of the door opening was the original size, it was not clearly informed Wang changed the size, so the original contract\’s agreement on the door opening size is still binding on Jianian Hongdi Real Estate. If the door opening size of the house delivered is not in compliance with the agreement, Jianian Hongdi Real Estate shall bear the liability for breach of contract. At present, the entire house has been completed and accepted, and Wang has also taken possession of the house. It requested Jianian Hongdi Real Estate to compensate for the loss of 3,000 yuan, which was relatively reasonable and therefore supported.

The second-instance judgment has not yet been found, and it is unknown whether both parties will appeal. Operator Finance Network will continue to track the subsequent progress.