After the buyer moved into the house he bought, he found that there was a problem with the quality of the house, and asked the real estate developer to repair it or bear the cost of repairing it. However, the real estate developer refused to take responsibility for the quality of the house on the grounds that the house had exceeded the warranty period. Then, if the commercial housing exceeds the warranty period, can the real estate developer be exempted from the quality guarantee responsibility?
Found the problem and failed to negotiate. The buyer appealed to the court.
Mr. Wang signed a Commercial Housing Sales Contract with a real estate developer and its annexes, which stated the information of Mr. Wang’s purchase of a house developed by a real estate developer and the delivery time of the house. According to the warranty scope, warranty period and warranty responsibility of the house, the warranty period of the plastering layer on the wall and ceiling of the house is 2 years. During the warranty period, if the plastering layer on the wall and ceiling of the house falls off due to construction quality problems, a real estate developer will carry out the warranty for free.
After the contract was signed, Mr. Wang paid the house price according to the contract, and a real estate developer also delivered the house to Mr. Wang on schedule, and Mr. Wang soon renovated and moved in.
Less than a year after moving in, Mr. Wang found that the wall and ceiling of the house began to crack and the plastering layer gradually fell off. Mr. Wang thought that there was a problem with the quality of the house, and immediately reported it to the sales office of the property service enterprise and a real estate developer in the community, but it was fruitless for many times. The property service enterprise and a real estate developer never came to the door for maintenance.
After a period of repeated negotiations, neither the property service enterprise nor a real estate developer responded to Mr. Wang’s maintenance requirements. In desperation, Mr. Wang filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that a real estate developer assume the responsibility of house maintenance and compensate for the losses caused in the process of house maintenance.
At the same time of prosecution, Mr. Wang entrusted a house safety appraisal company to appraise the houses involved in the case. After the on-site inspection, a house safety appraisal company made a House Safety Appraisal Report, and the appraisal conclusion was that the plastering layer of the house did not meet the requirements of "Quality Acceptance Standard for Building Decoration Engineering", "The plastering layer should be firmly bonded with the base layer, and the plastering layer should be free from delamination and hollowing, and the surface layer should be free from ash explosion and cracks", and there were quality problems in the plastering layer of the above-mentioned house. According to the "Quality Acceptance Standard for Building Decoration Engineering", the total area of hollowing is 11.36 square meters and the total length of cracks is 2.46 meters, which need to be repaired. The treatment suggestion given in the Housing Safety Appraisal Report is that the hollows and cracks should be removed with a shovel, and then plastered again and the surface decoration layer should be repaired according to the construction specification of plastering layer. Mr. Wang paid the appraisal fee of 8000 yuan.
During the court hearing, Mr. Wang also entrusted a real estate appraisal company to evaluate the repair cost and the cost of restoring the surface decorative layer of the house with quality problems. A real estate appraisal company made a Real Estate Appraisal Report, and the appraisal result showed that the total cost of repairing and restoring the surface decorative layer of the house with quality problems was 14,639 yuan according to the total area provided by Mr. Wang. Mr. Wang paid the appraisal fee of 2000 yuan.
Emphasize that the developer can’t refuse to pay for the overdue proof.
During the trial of the case, the court entrusted a professional institution to identify the house involved in the case, and concluded that the house involved in the case did have quality problems. In this regard, a real estate developer can’t prove that the quality problem is caused by other reasons, such as natural forces or improper use by buyers.
However, a real estate developer argued that the "Commercial Housing Sales Contract" signed with Mr. Wang stipulated that the warranty period for the plastering layer on the wall and ceiling of the house was two years, and the time for Mr. Wang to file a lawsuit had exceeded the warranty period of the house, so a real estate developer should not bear the responsibility of repairing the house and paying compensation.
After hearing the dispute between the two parties, the court held that the Commercial Housing Sales Contract signed by Mr. Wang and a real estate developer and its annexes were the true intention of both parties, and their contents did not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and both parties should strictly perform them. According to the contract between the two parties, the warranty period of the plastering layer on the wall and ceiling of the house is 2 years. During the warranty period, the two parties failed to bring a lawsuit to the court because of the quality of the house, so the plastering layer on the wall of the commercial house involved in the case did not pass the warranty period. In accordance with the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Disputes over Commercial Housing Sales Contracts, "the house delivered for use has quality problems, and the seller shall bear the responsibility for repair during the warranty period; If the seller refuses to repair or delays the repair within a reasonable period of time, the buyer can repair by himself or entrust others, and the repair cost and other losses caused during the repair period shall be borne by the seller. After identification, there are quality problems in the house involved in the case, and a real estate developer shall bear the liability for breach of contract.
Regarding the commitment of appraisal fees and evaluation fees, a real estate developer did not respond to whether there were quality problems in the houses involved in the delivery before the appraisal agency made a quality appraisal opinion, but agreed to conduct quality appraisal. Therefore, the appraisal fee and evaluation fee should also be borne by a real estate developer.
A real estate developer filed an appeal, claiming that the case claimed by Mr. Wang involved the repair of housing quality problems and surface decorations, which had exceeded the two-year warranty period stipulated in the purchase contract, and that Mr. Wang did not issue a "Housing Safety Appraisal Report" within the warranty period to prove that there was a problem with the housing quality, so a real estate developer should not bear the responsibility of housing repair and compensation.
The format clause has no effect. The collegial panel ruled as requested.
Mr. Wang pleaded in the second instance that when he handed over the house with a real estate developer, he did not carry out professional testing. As an ordinary consumer, he could not detect whether the house had quality problems during the inspection. At the same time, when handing over the house, a real estate developer did not provide the "Residential Quality Guarantee" as agreed in the contract, and a real estate developer did not inform himself of the warranty content and warranty period in detail.
The appraisal report on house safety makes the appraisal conclusion that the plastering layer of the house involved in the case has quality problems. Combined with the actual situation that the plastering layer of the house involved in the case falls off in a large area in less than two years, it is enough to conclude that the house involved in the case has quality problems and the two-year warranty period should not apply. Moreover, Mr. Wang has repeatedly asked a real estate developer to carry out maintenance, and a real estate developer has shirked it for various reasons, resulting in Mr. Wang having to entrust a professional organization to conduct appraisal and evaluation. The expenses caused by this are all caused by a malicious breach of contract by a real estate developer and should be borne by a real estate developer.
The court of second instance held that the Commercial Housing Sales Contract signed by Mr. Wang and a real estate developer was a standard contract provided by a real estate developer, and the terms concerning the warranty period of the roof and plastering layer of the house were standard terms. Although the warranty period is agreed, it exempts a real estate developer from the main responsibility in disguise and infringes on Mr. Wang’s main rights. Moreover, a real estate developer did not inform Mr. Wang of the relevant contents when presenting the contract, which should be considered as an invalid format clause.
Accordingly, the court of second instance ruled that the appeal reason of a real estate developer that "the warranty period has expired and it should not undertake the repair obligation" cannot be established. It is not improper for the court of first instance to order a real estate developer to pay Mr. Wang the repair cost determined according to the appraisal conclusion due to the housing quality problem.
The court of second instance stressed that during the trial of the case, it was identified by professional institutions that there were indeed quality problems in the houses involved. In this regard, a real estate developer can not prove that the quality problem is due to other reasons, so it should bear the consequences of failing to prove that the houses it provides do not meet the quality requirements.
The function and function of the housing warranty period is that the buyer can be exempted from the burden of proof that the housing quality problem is caused by the real estate developer during the warranty period, but it cannot be exempted from the contractual obligation of the real estate developer to ensure the housing quality within a reasonable period.
From this, we can be clear that commercial housing beyond the warranty period does not necessarily exempt real estate developers from the responsibility of quality assurance.