| The dispute of commodity premises ordering has been an importantpart of theoretical research and judicial practice. In this case, diputes lie inwhether there exists a contractual relationship between the plaintiff andthe defendant, whether the date of signing the purchase order and the dateof official signing is the same day, and what compensation responsibilitythe defendant should undertake. In this regard, firstly, purchase orderequals to the pre-contract essentially, but can be considered as commoditypremises sale contract when it contains essential terms of contract and theseller accepts the purchase agreement conditions. Secondly, when there aretwo or more interpretations of the standard clauses, the interpretation thatis unfavorable for the provider should be applied. Therefore, the real estatecompany’s claim that the date of signing the purchase order and the date ofofficial signing is the same day cannot be identified. Moreover, thepremium benefit caused by the rising price of the store involved belongs toperformance interest, thus it should be compensated for by the defaultparty. Meanwhile, since the real estate company as the defendant is able toanticipate the rising price of the store involved when concluding a contract,the defendant ought to pay the compensation. Finally, the defendant’sdefault conforms to the general constitutive elements of punitive damagesin the tort area and the general features of punitive damages, namely thedominance of default subject, moral condemnation of default behavior, andnon-closure of damage consequence in the field of contract. And theArticle8of the Judicial Explanation of Commercial Housing Sale Contractdispute cases rules that the vendor who sells the premises to a third partyafter the conclusion of the commodity premises sales and purchase contractought to be liable for damages not exceeding one time the purchase pricepaid. Therefore, the real estate company should undertake the liablity ofpunitive damages. |
PDF Full Text Request