Judicial Empirical Research On Contract Disputes Of “haunted House” Sales

The problem of “murderous homes” in the second-hand housing market is outstanding,and it is common for disputes arising from “fighting houses”.If the second-hand house is bought or sold,the house agent has the so-called house security service,and the “fighting house” clause is clearly stated in the sales contract.The“murder house” sale and purchase dispute can be resolved in a breach of contract.However,if there is no obligation to guarantee the "fighting house" in the "fighting house" sales contract,it is difficult to handle the "fighting house" sales dispute.Since the "murderous house" is not a legal concept,the legal premise of the settlement of the "fighting house" dispute is lacking.When the court hears the "murderous house" dispute,the judgment is different and the judgment results are different.The inconsistency of the court's judgment indicates that many legal issues involved in the "fighting house" disputes need to be resolved.On the basis of the 150 cases of “fighting house” disputes that can be retrieved from the Chinese courts' adjudication document network,the non-litigation case network,and Baidu,this paper conducts empirical research on the case and discovers many legal issues.The definition of "fighting house" is the leading problem in the settlement of "fighting house" sales disputes.The formation of the "fighting house" consciousness is the result of the long-term practice of folk customs,and its identification is extremely subjective.Influenced by the individual's living environment,value orientation,and belief pursuit,different individuals will have different evaluations of the same house.At the same time,the concept of "murderous house" is unclear,and the dispute of "murderous house" is rampant.In order to prevent the expansion of the "murderous house" and the results of the evaluation are different,it is necessary to formulate a unified "fighting house" certification standard.The identification of "fighting house" adopts subjective and objective criteria,and objective criteria are proposed around abnormal death events,which means that the death event must be caused by human factors or accidents other than life and death,and one of the behaviorsand results of the death event is to occur.Inside the house.Subjective criteria refer to the occurrence of abnormal deaths that are enough to cause psychological fear of the average person.The nature of the "fighting house" sale and purchase dispute is one of the court's disputes.Some courts believe that "murderous home" is a non-legal concept and that jealousy of "murderous home" is feudal superstition,and therefore denies the use of litigation to resolve "fighting house" sales disputes.However,from the perspectives of folklore,residential sociology,and law and economics,treating "murderous" cases as legal cases is the proper meaning of respecting folk customs,protecting the mental health of housing people,and making second-hand housing transactions more efficient.The trial path of the “murder house” sale and purchase dispute is chaotic.In practice,the court judgment method is divided into the contract validity and the buyer's appeal is rejected;the contract is valid and the seller infringes;the contract breaches the contract,the seller bears the liability for breach of contract;the contract can be revoked due to fraud or major misunderstanding.The contract can be revoked for five reasons because of violation of the public order.Through theoretical analysis,both the contract invalidation and the fundamental breach of contract are rejected.In the remaining refereeing methods,for the buyer,the insurgent relief path is difficult to win,and the contractual relief path should be chosen.In the three paths of fraud,major misunderstanding and guarantee,based on the buyer's litigation purpose and burden of proof,the fraud and major misunderstanding path can reduce the buyer's litigation burden and the winning rate is high.These two paths are the best.select.From the perspective of the seller and the buyer's responsibility,the dispute about the sale of the "fighting house" is investigated.It is found that the seller's informed status affects the establishment of the responsibility,which is mainly reflected in whether the court bears the risk of the "fighting house" contract when the seller does not know it.No conclusions.The number of courts in favor and opposition is the same.In the chain trading,the middle buyer is not liable as a seller,but he can recover from his forehand after taking responsibility.In non-chain sales,the seller's ignorance is rare;even if it is not known for objective reasons,the seller has not done the duty to collect housing information,and at this time it is liable.Moreover,although the uninformed seller does not constitute fraud or infringement,the major misunderstanding and the composition of the guarantee are not affected by the informed state.Therefore,the uninformed seller has the possibility of taking responsibility and has the possibility of taking responsibility.The uninformed seller needs to bear the risk of “fighting house” salescontract.The information inferior position of the "fighting house" buyer determines that it does not have the obligation to review the facts of the "murderous house".In the "fighting house" sales dispute,the buyer is not at fault and should not bear part of the responsibility.The follow-up problem of the establishment of the responsibility for the "fighting house" sale and purchase dispute is the loss determination.In the "fighting house" sale and purchase dispute,the buyer's loss is divided into two categories: mental damage and property damage.In practice,the value of depreciation of the murderous home is estimated to be different,and the claim of compensation for mental damage is mostly not supported.Estimates of the difference between “hazardous homes” can be determined by building a database of homes and industry assessment mechanisms.According to the infringement relief path,the buyer's moral damage can claim compensation,and the specific infringement personality right is the right to health.The standard of compensation for mental damage can be comprehensively measured based on the results of the adverse effects of the infringement on the buyer.In addition to the preface and conclusion,this article consists of four parts.The first part is an overview of the “fighting house” sales dispute.The paper briefly analyzes the operation mode of the "fighting house" dispute,analyzes the legal relationship involved in the "murderous house" dispute,and the necessity of conducting an empirical study on the "fighting house" dispute,and then analyzes the criteria for the identification of the "murder house".The second part combs the "fighting house" disputes that can be retrieved on the Internet.Through the method of empirical research,it analyzes the existing judicial judgments from the four aspects of the acceptance of the "murderous house" case,the type of judgment,the subject of responsibility and the loss.The third part,through the second part of the in-depth interpretation of the judicial status of the "fighting house" sales disputes,explores the deep reasons for the unreasonable judgment of the court,summed up the legal issues that need to be resolved in the "fighting house" sales dispute.The fourth part analyzes and solves the legal problems encountered in the practice of “fighting house” sales disputes.