An Analysis On Dispute Between Tang And A Company Over The Contract For The Sale And Purchase Of Commercial Housing

With the rapid development of economy,the traditional guarantee method can no longer meet the financing needs of enterprises.In this case,the Repaying Debts By Housing emerges as a new way of guarantee because of demand,which provides a new way of financing for enterprises,but also causes many disputes.In the case of the Company A sued by Tang et al for disputes over the sale contract of commercial housing,this new type of guarantee method was studied and found there were three core controversial focuses in this case;firstly,whether the first set of agreements and the second set of protocols are valid;secondly,whether the third set of agreements and the fourth Group protocol are valid;and thirdly,whether the Company A should be liable for breach of contract.First of all,the first set of agreements stipulates that the Company A ’s own property notice should be registered under the name of Tang et al,and that the advance notice registration of commercial housing should be carried out according to the second set of protocols,thus guaranteeing the loan contract.This kind of guarantee belongs to atypical guarantee,so it is not bound by the liquidity clause.The first set of agreements is valid because it expresses the true intention,does not infringe on the interests of others or the public interest,does not violate the prohibitive provisions of the law,and cannot be valid in the case of invalid provisions of the law.This new type of guarantee is recognized as Jean and guarantee because it conforms to the constituent elements of Jean and security.Secondly,the third set of agreements and the fourth group protocol are valid.The legal relationship between the two parties is not a “so called business but really a loan”.The fourth group protocol is a conditional contract,after the settlement of the parties to the contract,the change in the expression of intention will change the lending legal relationship between the parties to the contract for sale of commodity housing.Thirdly,the Company A should not be liable for breach of contract because it has not breached the contract.In this case,when the legal relationship between the parties is transformed into a commercial housing sales contract because of the entry into force of the third set of agreements and the fourth group protocol,whether or not the Company A breaches the contract and whether it should bear the responsibility for breach of contract should be determined according to the contract agreement.Because Tang and other initial purchase money from the high interest conversion,in company A requested the Court to adjust the high interest rate,Tang and other people did not fully fulfill the obligation to pay the initial purchase money as stipulated in the contract,so company A asserted that the defect to fulfill the right to correct the claim,to prove that they did not violate the contract agreement,is justified.Therefore,when Tang and others do not pay the full amount of the initial purchase,company A can temporarily not fulfill the obligation to pay the house and handle the certificate of property rights and land use rights certificate.Company A does not constitute A breach of contract.