[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a housing sales contract. In 2013, Liu * was introduced to Wang * and Li * * by an intermediary. Wang * knew that Liu * did not have the qualification to purchase resettlement housing, but still introduced it to him as "resettlement housing that could be purchased". He arranged for Liu * to sign a "Demolition and Compensation Agreement" with H Jiye Real Estate to purchase a 93.02-square-meter house and pay 480,000 yuan, but the house was never delivered. Liu * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Song Meina、Marcia WenThe lawyer sued the three defendants. The core dispute is the validity of the agreement to conceal the sale of the house by means of demolition and resettlement, and the joint and several liability of the three defendants. The applicable legal provisions are Article 134 and Article 157 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, and Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The court ruled that the agreement was invalid, and Wang * and Li * * were required to return 480,000 yuan and interest, with H Company being jointly and severally liable. The acceptance fee was borne by the three defendants.

I. Review of the Case

What should you do if you've paid for a demolition resettlement house but haven't received it? People often search for terms like "Is it possible to get a refund if the purchase of a resettlement house is invalid?" and "What should I do if I'm cheated when buying a house without resettlement qualifications?" and "How to recover the purchase price through tripartite joint and several liability". On November 24, 2013, Liu * wanted to buy a house and was introduced to Wang * and Li * by a real estate agent. Wang * knew that Liu * didn't meet the qualifications to be resettled in the Shuguang Residential Area of A County, but still introduced the house as "available for purchase" and arranged for Liu * to sign the "A County Shuguang Residential Area Demolition Exchange and Compensation Agreement" with H Jiye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (Company A). The agreement ostensibly stated "demolition resettlement", but in reality, Liu * paid 480,000 yuan for a 93.02-square-meter house. Wang * designated Li * to receive the payment, and Liu * paid 480,000 yuan in cash on the same day. Li * issued a receipt, but later transferred part of the money to Wang *. Later, Liu * learned that he didn't have legal qualifications to obtain the resettlement house, and the purpose of the agreement couldn't be achieved. Company A, Wang *, and Li * have never delivered the house. Liu * has now entrusted a lawyer to handle the case.Song Meina、Marcia WenThe lawyer brought the three defendants to court.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The nature and effectiveness of the agreement.Should the purchase and sale of houses be deemed invalid when it is disguised as relocation and resettlement, and the intention behind it is not genuine?
  • Focus Two: Responsible Subjects.H Company did not receive the payment directly. Wang * and Li * received the payment on its behalf. Could the three of them have colluded maliciously and should they bear joint and several liability?
  • Focus 3: Refunds and interest.After the agreement becomes invalid, how will the purchase price and the interest on the funds occupied be refunded?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The original complaint stated that:Liu * claimed that the three defendants colluded maliciously to induce unqualified individuals to sign agreements for demolition and resettlement, collected the money but failed to deliver the houses, and the purpose of the agreement was thwarted. He requested to confirm the invalidity of the agreement and to return 480,000 yuan and the interest thereon.

The defendant argued that:H Company argued that it should not be held responsible for not receiving the payment; Wang * and Li * * refused to appear in court without a valid reason after being summoned, which was regarded as giving up the right to defend and provide evidence.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Song Meina,Ma QianwenThe lawyer identified the difficulties: the form of the agreement does not match its substance, it's difficult to determine the responsible parties, and it's difficult to ascertain the defendant's absence. By collecting the agreement, 480,000 receipts, WeChat chats, and call recordings to establish the factual chain of false resettlement, illegal sales, and non-delivery of housing, the lawyer determined that the three defendants maliciously colluded to infringe upon the rights and interests of the plaintiff. The lawyer pointed out that the first defendant knew he had no qualifications and no pre-sale license, but still introduced the second defendant and the third defendant to collect the money and induce them to sign the contract; the second defendant knew the nature of the payment was a collection of funds and cooperated in concealing it; the three defendants jointly infringed upon the rights and interests and should jointly return the 480,000 yuan and the interest on the funds occupied; H Company, which was aware of the agreement and assumed responsibility for the delivery of the house, should also be held jointly liable.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that the content of the agreement was that Company H would provide compensation for the demolition and resettlement of the plaintiff's old house, but the plaintiff did not actually own the house to be demolished. The content of the agreement did not correspond to the facts and was not a true expression of the parties' intentions, thus rendering it invalid. The true intention of the agreement was for the plaintiff to purchase the house for 480,000 yuan, and if the defendant failed to deliver the house, they should refund the money and pay interest. The plaintiff transferred 480,000 yuan to Li **, and Wang ** acknowledged receiving the transferred portion. Both parties failed to appear in court to defend themselves and agreed to repay the loan together. Company H signed the agreement with knowledge of the situation and agreed to assume responsibility for delivering the house. If the defendant failed to deliver the house, they should be held jointly and severally liable with Wang ** and Li **. According to Article 134 and Article 157 of the Civil Code and Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Law, the court ruled as follows: First, the agreement is invalid; Second, Wang ** and Li ** shall return 480,000 yuan and interest (calculated according to the LPR from November 24, 2013) within ten days; Third, Company H shall bear joint and several liability; and the acceptance fee of 8,500 yuan shall be borne by the three defendants.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

This case is represented by Attorney Song Meina of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101202511880410, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ); and Attorney Ma Qiwen of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101202411868436, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). Demolition resettlement housing is favored for its price advantage, but the risks of property rights, policies, and certificate handling are prominent. A reminder to buyers: Don’t just focus on low prices and ignore property rights risks. Prioritize resettlement housing with complete real estate ownership certificates and no transaction restrictions. Sellers must disclose information truthfully and follow standard contract signing procedures. The legal and policy framework for resettlement housing transactions is complex. If there are unclear property rights issues, promptly seek professional legal assistance to protect your rights.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Land Acquisition and Demolition Cases

  1. Q: If the sale of public housing is invalid, can I get a refund?
    A:Yes. An agreement that conceals the sale and purchase of real estate through demolition and resettlement, and whose intent is not genuine, can be deemed invalid. The seller shall return the purchase price and the interest on the occupied funds.
  2. Q: What should I do if I'm cheated when buying a house without qualification for resettlement?
    A:Collect agreements, payment receipts, and chat recordings to prove that the other party knew they were not qualified but still induced you to sign the contract. File a lawsuit to confirm the contract's invalidity and demand a refund.
  3. Q: How should the repayment of the purchase price be determined in a tripartite joint and several liability case?
    A:If the developer, the introducer, and the payee collude maliciously, the parties involved may claim joint repayment and joint liability, which shall be determined by the court based on the evidence.
  4. Q: If I've paid the full amount but haven't received the house yet, can I get a refund?
    A:Yes. If the agreement is invalid or there is a fundamental breach of contract, you can request the return of the full amount paid and interest, and apply for property preservation.
  5. Q: How to avoid pitfalls when buying resettlement housing?
    A:Verify the qualifications of the resettled people and the real estate ownership certificates, check for transaction restrictions, sign standard contracts, and consult professional lawyers when necessary.