Li and Zhao took a fancy to a pre-sold shop and signed a purchase contract with the real estate company.
Later, during the construction process, Li and the others went to the site to inspect and found that as soon as they entered the door, it was a wall, and it was a load-bearing wall.
The picture comes from the Internet and has nothing to do with this case
Mr. Li and Mr. Zhao sued the court, requesting that the purchase contract signed between them and the real estate company be terminated, the purchase price should be returned, and liquidated damages and interest should be paid.
Li complained that in April 2022, he saw on the spot that there was a wall two or three meters from the entrance of the purchased shop, and there was only a narrow aisle about one meter wide next to it, and most of the store was only after passing through the aisle.
After discovering the problem, Li reported to the sales staff of the real estate company that he later learned that the wall was a load-bearing wall with a length of 3.5 meters and was not allowed to be demolished without authorization. In addition, Li also learned that there is a flue about 0.8 meters long and 1.2 meters wide above the left side of the door of the shop.
During the trial, the real estate company argued that the total price of the shops purchased by Li and Zhao was 620,000 yuan, while the price of other shops of the same area in the building was 1.2 million yuan. Moreover, the real estate company had clearly informed Li and Zhao that the shops involved in the case had defects, including the existence of ventilation ducts and load-bearing walls, and the two also signed and stamped the location of the load-bearing walls in the drawings attached to the sales contract.
The picture comes from the Internet and has nothing to do with this case
The court of first instance held that, firstly, the problems of ventilation ducts and load-bearing walls of the shops involved in the case were major defects affecting the functions of the shops and had a significant impact on the rights of consumers, and the real estate company should fully inform them to protect consumers' right to know. Second, although defective goods are usually traded at low prices, selling them at low prices cannot replace the operator's obligation to inform, nor can it be regarded as implicit notification, on the basis of which it is presumed that the consumer is aware of the specific defective content. Finally, because the commercial housing involved in the case was off-plan, Li and Zhao were unable to inspect the structure of the house on the spot, and the real estate company neither indicated the structural problems of the shop in obvious words in the floor plan of the shop, nor did it clarify this in the contract.
As ordinary consumers, Mr. Li and Mr. Zhao have limited cognitive ability, and they should not be required to know the structural problems of the shop by looking at the floor plan, so the fact that they signed and stamped on the floor plan alone cannot prove that they knew about the structural problems of the shop.
Therefore, although the structural problems such as ventilation ducts and load-bearing walls of the shops involved in the case did not cause the shops to completely lose their use value, they would objectively restrict Li and Zhao from using the shops, and the real estate company did not provide evidence to prove that they had fulfilled their obligation to truthfully inform, so the first instance upheld Li and Zhao's claims to terminate the contract and return the purchase price paid.
The real estate company appealed against the first-instance judgment, and the Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment upholding the first-instance judgment.
Judge reminds
The developer shall truthfully disclose and inform the buyer of the defects in the current situation of the house, structural facilities and other commodities that may affect the normal use and function of the commercial house, and obtain its consent in advance or obtain retrospective recognition afterwards, so that the buyer can make a reasonable choice.
Although defective goods are usually traded at a low price, selling them at a low price cannot replace the operator's obligation to inform, nor can it be regarded as implied notification, so it is presumed that the consumer has known the content of the specific defect, and the operator still needs to perform the obligation of truthful notification of the specific defect.
Source: Zhejiang Legal News Reporter: Ma Lihong Correspondent: Du Yanling