Case Results Display

　　Lawyer Song Heng

　　Case Name:Liu Qingwen v.Luoyang Zhengda Real Estate Co.,Ltd

　　Undertakers:Yang Lin and Song Heng

　　Cause of case:Disputes over sales contracts for commercial housing

　　Result:First instance win

　　Business achievement:The plaintiff Liu Qingwen,as the buyer,purchased a commercial property developed by Zhengda Real Estate.The actual floor height of the commercial property delivered by the defendant was significantly lower than the agreed floor height in the contract,which made it impossible for the plaintiff to use the commercial property reasonably and thus prevented the plaintiff from achieving the purpose of the contract.The defendant constituted a fundamental breach of contract.The plaintiff demanded the termination of the contract and demanded that the defendant return the plaintiff's purchase price and interest,as well as pay a penalty for breach of contract.

　　Case characteristics:This case is a typical commercial housing sales contract dispute,and the focus of the dispute is not the common problems of overdue delivery and housing quality,but a relatively rare issue of housing floor height.The contract stipulates a floor height of 6.5 meters per floor,but the defendant added a mezzanine to the first floor of the house without authorization,transforming it into a second floor,increasing the area of the house,increasing the price of the house,but also reducing the floor height,resulting in the plaintiff's inability to achieve its intended use.

　　Case handling experience:1.To search for the floor height and net height of the commercial buildings specified by the state,and see if the floor height of the house in this case meets the national regulations;2.The floor height agreed upon in the pre-sale contract for commercial housing is beneficial to our side,and we need to seize this key point to make the other party unable to refute it.3.It should be emphasized that when the plaintiff purchased the***house,they were not aware of the structure and actual floor height of the house,and the defendant did not fulfill their obligation to inform.In the trial,the defendant also failed to provide corresponding evidence to prove that the plaintiff was aware of the structure of the house.