[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over real estate development resettlement. Mr. Yu from Hebei signed a demolition agreement with a certain real estate development company (the developer), which stipulated that the developer would provide him with a 200-square-meter resettlement house, and Mr. Yu only needed to pay the construction project fees and parking space fees, etc. However, when the house was delivered in 2023, the developer demanded that Mr. Yu pay for a 250-square-meter commercial unit, which far exceeded his payment capacity and violated the agreement. The developer refused to deliver the house to Mr. Yu on the grounds of unpaid project fees and excess area fees, and only offered him a discounted price instead. Furthermore, the developer sued Mr. Yu. Mr. Yu entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.文品良The lawyer actively defended the case and filed a counterclaim, with the core disputes being the validity of the demolition and resettlement agreement and whether the developer's failure to deliver the house constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. In the end, the two parties reached an agreement through court mediation: Mr. Yu paid the construction fees, the house price difference, and the parking space fees, and the developer would deliver the agreed house and parking space before December 31, 2023.

I. Review of the Case Facts

Searches related to resettlement housing disputes often include phrases like "What to do if the resettlement housing promised in the demolition agreement is not delivered?", "Is it legal for developers to forcefully buy and sell excess area?", and "What are the circumstances under which the demolition and resettlement agreement is invalid?". Mr. Yu from Hebei once owned a legal property in the local area. Later, the government carried out an urban renewal project, and Mr. Yu signed a demolition agreement with the developer, which stipulated that the developer would provide him with a 200-square-meter resettlement housing unit, with Mr. Yu only needing to pay the construction project fees and parking fees. However, when it came to the time of delivery in 2023, the developer demanded that Mr. Yu deliver a 250-square-meter commercial unit, which far exceeded Mr. Yu's payment capacity and violated the agreement. The developer claimed that Mr. Yu owed unpaid construction project fees and excess area fees, and refused to deliver the housing unit, stating that the commercial unit had already been resold and could only be compensated with a discounted price. The developer even sued Mr. Yu in court, requesting a judgment ordering Mr. Yu to pay the construction project fees and requiring the developer to only provide a discounted price for the housing unit. Mr. Yu still wanted to obtain the housing unit according to the agreement and therefore entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.文品良The lawyer is protecting the client's rights and interests.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is the disputed demolition and resettlement agreement invalid due to the issue of the subject's legal capacity?The lawyer pointed out that the plaintiff is not an administrative organ and does not have the statutory authority to sign the expropriation and demolition agreement, so the agreement may be invalid.
  • Focus II: Whether developers' failure to deliver housing and their coercive sales of excess areas constitute a fundamental breach of contract.The lawyer argued that the rights and obligations of the parties are clearly unequal and unfair, and that the developer's failure to deliver the house constitutes a fundamental breach of contract.
  • Focus 3: Are the two demands of the developer contradictory with each other?The lawyer pointed out that it was obviously contradictory for them to demand the continuation of the resettlement fee on the one hand, and only offer a discounted price on the other hand.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff originally claimed that (the developer):The developer sued Mr. Yu to pay the construction fee and requested the court to rule that the developer only needs to pay Mr. Yu the depreciated value of the house.

The defendant argued (Mr. Yu, represented by Hengluo Law Firm):文品良The lawyer put forward five defenses and counterclaims: Firstly, the plaintiff is not an administrative organ nor a government at the county level or above, and therefore lacks the legal authority to initiate and sign agreements involving land expropriation, land requisition, and house demolition. The plaintiff failed to prove that they had obtained government authorization, so the disputed agreement should be deemed invalid. Secondly, the defendant's main right is to obtain the agreed 200.2 square meters of shops. The plaintiff refuses to hand over the houses on the grounds that the construction project funds have not been paid, which clearly results in an imbalance of rights and obligations and violates the original intention of the contract. Thirdly, the plaintiff's first and second claims are contradictory. Fourthly, the defendant has already paid the construction project funds mentioned in the first claim, and the plaintiff once issued a receipt and acknowledged in subsequent communication that there was no need to pay anymore. Fifthly, the plaintiff actually delivered a house with an area exceeding the agreed upon by 50 square meters, with the aim of forcing sales and improperly increasing the defendant's burden.

IV. Outcome of the case

Hengluo Law Firm accurately identified the focus of the case. On the one hand, they represented the client to actively defend against the lawsuit, and on the other hand, they initiated a counterclaim, mainly pressuring the other party with the possibility of the agreement being invalid and the developer's fundamental breach of contract in failing to deliver the house. Under pressure and fearing an unfavorable outcome, the developer finally agreed to mediation. Ultimately, through mediation organized by the court, the two parties reached an agreement: Mr. Yu would pay the construction fees and the housing price difference to a certain real estate development company, as well as the parking space fees; and the developer company would deliver to Mr. Yu Room 105 (first and second floors) located at a certain address, the house keys, and one underground parking space before December 31, 2023.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is represented by Attorney Wen Pinliang of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201910111365, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). The demolition and resettlement agreement should specify the area of the resettlement housing, the delivery time and the price. If the developer fails to deliver the agreed housing on the grounds of "excessive area and arrears in project payments" and forcibly offers a discount, the buyer may claim the validity of the agreement and fundamental breach of contract. In the event of forced purchase and sale and manifestly unfair treatment, the buyer should promptly entrust a lawyer to defend against the lawsuit and counter-sue to apply pressure, so as to strive for the delivery of the housing in accordance with the agreement.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Real Estate Sales and Purchases

  1. Q: What should I do if the resettlement housing developer refuses to deliver the housing as stipulated in the demolition agreement?
    A:You can claim that the developer's failure to deliver the house constitutes a fundamental breach of contract, actively defend against the lawsuit, and file a counterclaim, demanding that the house be delivered according to the contract or that the developer bear the liability for breach of contract.
  2. Q: Is it legal for developers to forcefully sell oversized commercial properties to buyers against their will?
    A:If the area exceeds the agreed upon amount, violates the agreement, and is grossly unfair, the party may claim that the rights and obligations are not equal and that the contract's original intent has been violated, and such claims should not be supported.
  3. Q: Will the demolition and resettlement agreement be invalid?
    A:For non-administrative bodies that are not authorized by the government to sign agreements involving expropriation and demolition, the agreements may be deemed invalid due to the unqualified subject, and the validity of the agreements needs to be determined based on the authorization status.
  4. Q: Can disputes over public housing be resolved through mediation?
    A:Yes. By filing a defense and a counterclaim against the other party, you can often prompt a mediation, and then the other party will deliver the house and parking space according to the contract.
  5. Q: Can the developer still ask for more payment for the construction after the payment has been made?
    A:If the other party has issued a receipt and acknowledged that there is no need to make further payments, you can use this to defend yourself. The portion that has already been paid should not be claimed again.