[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, if a party improperly induces the fulfillment of a condition in their own interest in a conditional contract, it shall be deemed that the condition has not been fulfilled according to law, and the other party may claim that the condition has not taken effect, refuse to perform the corresponding obligations, and seek compensation. According to Article 159 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021), improperly preventing the fulfillment of a condition shall be deemed to have been fulfilled, and improperly inducing the fulfillment of a condition shall be deemed not to have been fulfilled. In practice, it is necessary to provide evidence that the other party has subjective malice and inducing behavior. It is recommended to fix the evidence of the other party's malicious inducement as soon as possible, such as communication records and performance behaviors, and, if necessary, initiate litigation or arbitration to confirm the status of the condition and claim compensation. For more details, please refer toBusiness and contract dispute resolution services for enterprises.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

Conditional contracts are commonly used in commercial transactions such as betting arrangements, payment milestones, approval taking effect, and performance targets. Typical scenarios include: the buyer agreeing to pay after completing the acceptance but deliberately delaying the acceptance to avoid making the payment; the investor agreeing to inject capital after meeting the target but secretly hindering the target from being achieved; the lessor agreeing to terminate the contract if the lessee breaches the contract but actively creating grounds for breach. When the fulfillment of the condition directly relates to payment, delivery, or contract termination, any manipulation by either party will lead to intense disputes. Such issues are quite common in business cooperation and performance management, and early identification of malicious behavior is particularly crucial for protecting rights and interests. For issues involving contract review and performance disputes, it is advisable to combine the following measures:Business and contract dispute services for enterprisesEvaluate them together.

II. Key points of contention

The focus of the dispute lies in three aspects. Firstly, the nature of the act: whether the other party's actions constitute improperly facilitating the fulfillment of the condition, which requires proving that they acted with the intention of benefiting themselves and actively intervened in the condition. Secondly, the difficulty of providing evidence: malicious intent and causality are often concealed, and chat records, emails, and third-party testimonies are key pieces of evidence. Thirdly, legal consequences: if the condition is deemed not to have been fulfilled, whether the contract will continue to be performed and how the part already performed will be liquidated. When handling similar cases in Beijing, the court focuses on reviewing the performance process and the actions of both parties to determine whether the condition has been fulfilled. It tends to protect the party in compliance against those who have clearly intervened maliciously. For cases involving the counterparty's credit risk, reference can be made to relevant provisions.Creditor-debtor relations and enforcement case servicesCoordinate and plan everything in an organized and efficient way to ensure that all tasks are completed on schedule and within budget.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

Take the contract dispute handled by our firm as an example: Zhang Na and Wang Xiaoyong signed the "Beijing Hukou Marriage and Registration Agreement" with Zhao Chenyang to register their child's Beijing hukou, agreeing to fake a marriage for registration and paying 100,000 yuan. However, the registration failed due to policy restrictions. The couple entrusted Xue Shuhua's legal team from Beijing Henglu Law Firm to sue for the invalidation of the agreement and the recovery of the payment. The lawyer conducted a meticulous investigation, collecting the "Consultation Intermediary Service Contract", the registration agreement, transfer records, and the divorce certificate. He also used phone recordings to confirm that Zhao Chenyang admitted to receiving the payment and splitting the profits with the intermediary. The civil mediation document corroborated that the fake marriage was a systematic operation. Citing Article 151 of the Civil Code, the lawyer argued that the agreement violated public order and good customs and was invalid from the outset. According to Article 157, he demanded that the direct recipient fully refund the payment. The court adopted the lawyer's opinion, confirmed the invalidity of the agreement, and ordered Zhao Chenyang to return the 100,000 yuan within a specified period and bear the case acceptance fees and announcement fees. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Xue SuhuaThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201211769926, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The core basis is Article 158 (Civil Legal Acts with Conditions), Article 159 (Presumption of the Condition Being Fulfilled or Not Being Fulfilled), and Article 157 (Return of Property After the Legal Act Being Invalid) of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021); as well as the provisions on the burden of proof in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Practical suggestions: When signing the contract, clarify the content, standards, and determination methods of the conditions, and quantify them as much as possible; during the performance of the contract, keep records of the other party's performance and communication, and immediately fix the evidence if malicious fulfillment is found; if no agreement can be reached, promptly initiate litigation or arbitration to request confirmation of the condition status and claim compensation for losses; and review related contracts to prevent chain risks. For those involved in contract drafting and clause design, they can combine the above provisions with relevant legal knowledge to ensure the legal validity of the contract and protect their legitimate rights and interests.Intellectual Property and Corporate Legal ServicesImprove risk control.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

The core risk of conditional contracts lies in the fact that the conditions can be manipulated by humans. It is recommended to set up a neutral and verifiable condition determination mechanism at the clause design stage to avoid leaving the success or failure of the conditions entirely in the hands of one party. Once it is found that the other party maliciously facilitates or prevents the achievement of the conditions, do not just stay at verbal disputes. Instead, you should secure evidence and evaluate litigation and arbitration paths as soon as possible. The return of property and compensation for losses after the contract is invalid or the conditions are not achieved must be claimed within the statute of limitations. If you need a case-by-case evaluation, you can seek help from a professional legal team.Special services and other case-related servicesCoordinate with the professional team.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the other party maliciously creates the conditions, can I win the lawsuit?

It is usually difficult to obtain support for a party who maliciously facilitates the fulfillment of a condition and claims that the condition has been fulfilled. According to Article 159 of the Civil Code, improperly facilitating the fulfillment of a condition is deemed as the condition not being fulfilled, and the party in breach of contract has the right to refuse to perform the corresponding obligations and request remedies. However, the outcome depends on whether it can be proven that the other party has subjective malice and facilitating actions, rather than just speculation. It is recommended to organize evidence around the specific facts of the other party's intervention in the condition. The more conclusive the evidence is, the more likely it is to obtain a favorable determination. However, there is no inevitable outcome in any case, and it needs to be judged comprehensively based on the facts and the law.

Q2: If I claim that the other party maliciously created the conditions, what evidence should I prepare?

The core evidence includes: the text of the contractual provisions subject to conditions; objective materials proving that the conditions have not been met, such as unverified records and non-compliant data; evidence of the other party's malicious actions, including correspondence, WeChat chats, call recordings, and third-party testimonies; proof of the party's performance of its obligations or suffered losses; and a timeline of performance. The evidence should focus on the other party's active intervention in the organization for its own interests. Hidden actions rely more on electronic evidence and witness testimonies. It is recommended to fix the evidence as soon as possible to prevent its loss.

Q3: How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to handle this kind of dispute?

The fees include attorney fees and litigation fees. Attorney fees are negotiated between the law firm and the client, and are typically charged on a per-case basis or as a percentage of the disputed amount. The specific fees are subject to the contract of engagement. For general contract disputes other than marriage and inheritance, contingency fees may be applied, but there are strict limitations. Litigation fees are calculated according to the amount in dispute and are accumulated in stages, with the losing party bearing the responsibility. It is recommended to first understand the fee details and weigh the costs and benefits based on the amount that can be claimed.

Q4: How long does it typically take from detecting malicious activity to obtaining the results?

If the dispute is resolved through negotiation or a letter, it can be settled within a few weeks; if it goes to litigation, the first-instance ordinary procedure will be concluded within six months and the summary procedure within three months, and the second-instance procedure within three months; the arbitration period usually lasts several months. If it involves appraisal, investigation, or the other party's delay, the time will be extended accordingly. It often takes several months from discovering malicious behavior to completing the right confirmation. It is recommended to submit key evidence within the evidentiary period to avoid missing the deadline and affecting the outcome.

Q5: If I discover that the other party has maliciously created conditions, what should I do first?

It is recommended to proceed in four steps: First, sort out the contract terms and performance records to confirm whether the conditions were indeed maliciously induced; Second, immediately fix the evidence of the other party's intervention, including chats, recordings, and written materials; Third, evaluate whether to send a letter of objection, negotiate amendments, or sue to confirm that the conditions have not been met and claim compensation; Fourth, if necessary, hire a lawyer to intervene and assert rights within the statute of limitations. Throughout the process, keep records of communication to avoid verbal disputes with the other party that are not supported by evidence.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. The adjudication standards in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Business and commercial legal services·Attorney Xue Suhua·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.