[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, there are two scenarios: if the buyer loses the eligibility to purchase a house due to policy adjustments such as purchase restrictions, and the contract cannot be fulfilled, it belongs to a situation that cannot be attributed to either party. The buyer can request to rescind the contract, and the paid purchase price should be refunded. Neither party shall bear the liability for breach of contract; if the buyer loses the eligibility after signing the contract due to their own reasons (such as the interruption of social insurance payments, divorce and division of property, or the addition of a new house under their name), whether the contract can be rescinded depends on the contractual provisions and the degree of fault. In most cases, the buyer shall bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract. The core judgment criterion is whether the reason for the loss of eligibility can be attributed to the buyer.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

After signing the contract, the purchase restriction policy was tightened and the requirement for the length of social insurance was raised, so the buyer suddenly became ineligible to purchase the property. Alternatively, the buyer might have purchased other properties or experienced changes in their marital status during this period, resulting in the number of properties under their name exceeding the purchase restriction limit. The buyer signed the contract and paid the deposit, but the property could not be transferred. The seller refused to refund the deposit, and the buyer wanted to terminate the contract but was afraid of being held liable for breach of contract, thus creating a stalemate.

II. Key points of contention

First, whether the disqualification due to policy reasons constitutes a non-attributable event. Second, the buyer's breach of contract liability when disqualified due to their own reasons. Third, the return of the deposit and the purchase price after the contract is rescinded. Fourth, whether the seller can claim compensation for the loss of the price difference.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

First, the qualification of policy-related reasons: In individual cases, purchase restriction policies are typically identified as non-attributable causes of contract performance obstacles—the buyer cannot foresee or control policy adjustments, and if the contract cannot be performed due to loss of eligibility, the buyer may request termination and the seller should refund the paid down payment. Judicial rulings have clarified that in such situations, neither party bears breach of contract liability after contract termination, but the court will adjudicate the handling of deposits based on payment progress and property possession status, with specific provisions subject to current laws, regulations, and judicial rulings. Second, the qualification of self-related reasons is entirely different: Matters such as interrupted social insurance payments and purchasing additional properties fall within the buyer's control. In judicial practice, these are generally not recognized as valid grounds for termination, and the seller may claim continued performance or seek breach of contract liability. If the buyer unilaterally terminates the contract in such cases, the seller may claim penalties for deposits, breach of contract clauses, and even losses in property price differences. Third, the review of liability for obstacles in housing sales contracts is a technical task. In a pre-sale housing contract dispute handled by Attorney Tian Jiaoyan of Henglue Law Firm, the developer delayed delivery by nearly nine months, claiming that the pandemic constituted force majeure and seeking to accumulate an extension period and exemption from liability. Attorney Tian pointed out that the contract was signed in 2021, when the pandemic had already become a norm. The developer should have foreseen this and the pandemic did not constitute force majeure. Factors such as inclement weather and government meetings also cannot exempt liability. The extension period should be strictly applied according to the contract. The court ultimately adopted the attorney's argument, ruling that the developer should pay 118,366.12 yuan in breach of contract damages and bear litigation costs. This case confirms the logic of this article: When obstacles arise in contract performance, liability is not determined by the magnitude of the loss, but by whether the cause of the obstacle can be attributed and how the contract terms are stipulated. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Tian JiayanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202111381309, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Fourthly, path selection: For cases where the qualification is lost due to policy reasons, it is necessary to notify the seller in writing as soon as possible to terminate the contract and claim a refund to avoid prolonging the dispute into a breach of contract; for cases due to personal reasons, it is preferable to negotiate with the seller to change the performance method (such as transferring the ownership after the qualification is restored, or allowing a qualified family member to purchase the property with the seller's consent). If no agreement can be reached, the cost of terminating the contract should be evaluated; regardless of the path taken, the delivery of the termination notice and the explanation of the reasons will affect the subsequent determination of liability. It is recommended that a lawyer review and ensure the accuracy of these matters.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to identify the reasons and time points for the loss of eligibility, and preserve evidence such as policy documents and social security records. The second step is to notify the other party in writing and clarify the reasons for termination. The third step is to immediately claim the return of the housing deposit for policy-related reasons, and to negotiate changes in performance for personal reasons. The fourth step is to evaluate and preserve evidence simultaneously when the dispute enters litigation. The main legal basis: Articles 563, 577, and 580 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, and relevant provisions of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trials of Disputes over Commercial Housing Sales Contracts; the application of purchase restriction policies shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

There are three key points regarding disputes over purchase qualifications: 1. **Policy-related reasons** are exempt from liability. Both parties are exempt from responsibility for refunds and contract terminations. 2. **Self-inflicted reasons** require the buyer to bear breach-of-contract liability if they unilaterally terminate the contract. First, negotiate amendments to the contract before discussing refund options. 3. **Responsibility for termination notices and delivery decisions**: Avoid issuing termination notices hastily without first verifying all relevant details. For disputes involving the termination of real estate purchase contracts and transfer issues, parties may seek resolution through legal channels.Real estate transactions and construction projectsFor those interested in purchasing a home, they can refer to the overall solution provided by the service, which covers eligibility for home purchase and family property arrangementsDivorce litigation and family disputesFor the execution of the refund of the housing payment, the parties involved can cooperate with each other to resolve the issue.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementFor any policy-related issues or difficulties that need to be addressed, you can seek advice from the columnSpecial servicesFor those involved in contract breach litigation, please feel free to contact our team for further assistanceBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesThe team's experience.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If I lose my eligibility for the purchase restriction, can I win the lawsuit?

If the contract cannot be performed due to policy reasons, judicial practice generally supports the rescission of the contract and the return of the housing payment, and the chances of winning the lawsuit are relatively high. However, the handling of the deposit requires case-by-case evaluation.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare?

The purchase contract, payment receipts, documents on the purchase restriction policy, the results of the qualification verification, social security and tax payment records, and communication records between the two parties.

Q3: How are the costs of litigation calculated?

The fees are calculated based on the amount of the refunded housing payment, plus preservation fees, etc. Due to policy reasons, the facts of the case are clear, and the cost can be reduced through pre-litigation mediation.

Q4: How long does the release process take?

It usually takes several weeks to negotiate a refund; the first-instance litigation typically lasts several months, and the duration will vary depending on whether the defendant needs to resume performance after the restoration of their qualifications.

Q5: What should I do first if I find out that I'm not eligible?

First, finalize the policy and eligibility evidence, then have a lawyer review and issue the termination notice and claim for repayment to avoid being counter-sued for breach of contract if handled by oneself.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Legal services for real estate transactions·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open 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. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.