An Analysis On The Case Involving Liu, Tian And Mao Of Selling One House To Two Buyers

In the numerous cases of'a room two sells', the key is to ensure validity of sales contract of two houses and house's ownership. So are the cases of Mr. Liu's lawsuit against Mr. Tian and Mr. Mao's'a room two sell'. The focuses of the argument are following:whether the house transferring agreement signed by Mr. Mao and Mr. Liu is valid or not; whether the house sales contract signed by Mr. Mao and Mr. Tian is valid or not; and the ownership of the house. Firstly, the house transferring agreement signed by Mr. Mao and Mr. Liu is valid for the contract is conformed to conditions of validity for house transferring agreement which request willingness, compensation and that both have full capacity. Secondly, the house sales contract signed by Mr. Mao and Mr. Tian is valid. The reason is that Mr. Mao does not transfer his ownership of the house although he signs the house sales contract with Mr. Liu. Thus Mr. Mao is still the owner of the house and he has the right to sign house sales contract with Mr. Tian based on the willingness. The house sales contract is consequently valid. Thirdly, the house ownership belongs to Mr. Tian. The model of ownership change in China takes creditor's right formalism, which means ownership change takes place after movable property is paid and immovable property is registered. Mr. Mao signs house sales contract with Mr. Liu without property transferred before he signs house sales contract with Mr. Tian. As a result, Mr. Tian has the ownership of the house. What's more, what Mr. Mao does cheats Mr. Liu and Mr. Tian. Whether his behavior is crime of contract fraud or not depends on key components of crime of contract fraud. Mr. Mao does not transfer house ownership although he signs house sales contract with the former buyer Mr. Liu. Thus Mr. Mao has the capacity and condition to perform the contract when he signs house sales contract with Mr. Tian, which is not conformed to objective composition of crime of contract fraud. So Mr. Mao is absolved of crime of contract fraud. Lastly, When Mr. Liu's right is infringed and the court mediation documents has come into force, he brings the suit of the third party discharging the judgment which maintain his rights more directly and pointedly compared with his lawsuit against both Mr. Mao and Mr. Liu. And what Mr. Tian does can save lawsuit cost and maintain court's authority of consistent judgment to the same lawsuit object.