On One-house-two-sales And Price Difference Compensation

Recently,a series of social problem triggered due to overfast growing and skyscraping housing price.One of them is ownership disputes from one-house-two-sales real estate transactions.In juridical practice,however,we can see apparently divergence on the question of whom should the involved property belong to and what kind of liability should the delinquent party to pay compensation.Beside the practice,disputes on these questions also exist in the academic world.One-house-two-sales cases relate to complex legal nexus,and there is no explicit clause in our existing law in China as adjudication basis.This article is talking about the property belongingness and liability of the delinquent party in One-house-two-sales cases.Upon the premise of real estate transaction contract and property transfer legal nexus,this article will use psychological and economical analysis to demonstrate the two primary questions.The first part discusses the issue of social anxious and credit crisis under overfast growing housing price.Based on data statistics from Numbeo.com and reaction of the public facing to the unaffordable housing price,this article revealed the inevitability of one-house-two-sales disputes.The second part discusses the two premises of one-house-two-sales transactions:contract and property right transfer.Real estate transaction contract includes property right and obligatory right legal nexus.As the relationship of these two legal nexus,the academical circle tends to clarify the independence of property transfer contract.In continental legal system,there are three main legislation patterns on property right transfer:Obligatory right idealism,Property right formalism and Obligatory right formalism.France,Germany and Austria represent these three patterns accordingly.Distinct defects can be found in the former two patterns while the third pattern combined the merits of the former two patterns and balanced right,obligation and risk to both the buyer and the seller properly.Obligatory right formalism fitted our national conditions,so the pattern was selected by lawmakers in China.The third part analyses psychological and economical factors on one-house-two-sales cases.On the one hand,Abraham Maslow,the famous American psychiatrist attested that man cannot be absolutely satisfied by way of reaching the sky in a single bound,namely,the theory of Dominant desire and progressive satisfaction.Upon these theories,Maslow believe that the seller will endlessly violate the contract and sell the house to the afterward buyers as long as they agree to pay higher price for the contract if there is no punishment to the delinquent party.On the other hand,in economical aspect,if the opportunist violates the contract but bear no punishment,or the punishment lighter than the benefit he obtain through contract violation,the opportunist will just do it.The fourth part discusses the property belongingness based on the principal of One thing,One right and relevant juridical practice.As one of the three property law primary principles,One thing,One right means that one-house-two-sales consequently results in conflict of property belongingness.In Chinese juridical practice,the protection of property belongingness in one-house-two-sales cases should comply with the following sequence:(1)whom already occupied the house legally;(2)whom the seller already conducted the ownership transfer registration with and;(3)buyer of the former contract.Actually,this property belongingness protection sequence embodied the Obligatory right formalism in our country.The fifth part discusses the relief on one-house-two-sales cases.Trough analyzing judgment on one-house-two-sales cases from courts in multiple ranks,we can see that our juridical practice has already clarified the compensation liability for price difference loss that the seller should undertake.The divergence between courts on judgement is the scale of compensation liability for price difference loss.Namely,should the dishonest seller undertake compensation liability for price difference loss higher than the contract price?Combined with analysis of related rules,this article demonstrated that principle of price difference loss compensation meet legal philosophy and common sense as well.The author believes that legislation should clarify the rules for price difference loss compensation,the author also suggest the lawmaker refer to punitive damages in Consumer rights and interests protection law and set higher,elastic compensation limit,thus the rule can be fitted to the social reality of overfast growing housing price.