The Research On Malicious Contract Breaking Responsibilities In House Transaction

In recent years, in increasing transaction market of business property, due to the shortage of professional knowledge by house purchaser and improper behaviors of contract breaking by several developers, resulted in "twice sales for one house" and even "several sales for one house" by the developer. General speaking, the reason existed in the above affairs should be unfair force between house purchaser and developer, entitlement of house purchaser in comparative weakness is easy to be infracted. Therefore, establishing punitive compensation system against the malicious contract breaking behaviors in real estate market is imperative, which is also the only way to resolve the problem of "several sales for one house".In the aspect of contract conflict, our country adopts the regulation of strict responsibility, which means disregarding the subjective condition of contract breaker, he/she should undertake contract breaking responsibilities in case of contract breaking behaviors occurred. However, in current civil laws, there is only "Explanation on Inspecting the law establishment purpose of The Explanation, it can be easily concluded that civil law establishment in our country has been more and more taking account of the affection by "subjective condition" to contract breaking.The healthy development of business property market is depending on consummate law system establishment, after consideration to "subjective condition", there is improvement meaning in applied punitive compensation responsibility system against the malicious contract breaking behaviors. In the aspect of how to establish and improve punitive compensation system in contract laws of business property purchasing, there are conceptions raised from the following fields:(1) Firstly, punitive compensation should be a strict law system; (2) In allocation of testification responsibility, this discourse considers that in case the Party of contract fulfillment can proof the fact of being infracted as well as the causality of infracting fact and infracting behavior, he/she is therefore entitled to the compensation.; (3) Regarding to the unrestricted judgment power of justicer, on one hand, unrestricted judgment power of justicer should be exerted, on the other hand, unrestricted judgment power of justicer should be limited for over exerted.