刘某诉某置业公司商铺定购纠纷案评析

发布时间：2018-04-17 15:54

本文选题：定购单 + 溢价利益　；参考：《湖南大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：商品房定购纠纷一直是理论研究和司法实践的重要内容。样本案例中，原告刘某与被告某置业公司就原告与被告间是否形成商品房买卖合同关系、正式签约日与定购单签订日是否是同一日及被告承担何种赔偿责任产生了较大的分歧。首先，定购单本质是预约合同，但在具备合同成立必要条款，且出售方依约接受购房款条件时，定购单即被视为商品房买卖合同。其次，格式条款有两种以上不同解释时，当作不利于格式条款提供方的解释，所以某置业公司主张的正式签约日与定购单签订日为同一日不能被认定。再者，涉案商铺价格上涨产生的溢价利益是履行利益，应当由违约方赔偿，同时，基于被告是房地产开发商，应当认定其在订立买卖合同关系时能够预见涉案商铺价格上涨的趋势，因此，被告应当对此溢价利益予以赔偿。最后，样本案例中被告的违约行为符合侵权领域惩罚性损害赔偿的一般构成要件，也符合合同领域惩罚性损害赔偿的违约主体强势性、违约行为道德非难性、损害后果非封闭性的一般特征，《最高人民法院关于审理商品房买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第8条也规定了，开发商在与购房者签订商品房买卖合同后，将标的房屋售予他人，应当承担已付房款一倍以下的赔偿责任，，因此某置业公司应当承担惩罚性损害赔偿责任。
[Abstract]:Commercial housing purchase dispute has been an important content of theoretical research and judicial practice.In the sample case, the plaintiff Liu and a property company of the defendant have a great disagreement on whether the contract relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is formed for the purchase and sale of commercial housing, whether the date of the formal signing and the date of signing the purchase order are the same day and what kind of liability the defendant bears.First of all, the purchase order is an appointment contract, but when it has the necessary terms to establish the contract, and the seller accepts the condition of the purchase, the purchase order is regarded as the contract of purchase and sale of commercial housing.Secondly, when there are more than two different interpretations of the form clause, it is considered to be unfavorable to the provider of the format clause, so the formal contract date advocated by a home purchase company and the purchase order signing date cannot be considered as the same date.Furthermore, the premium interest arising from the increase in the prices of the shops involved is the benefit of performance, which should be compensated by the defaulting party, and on the basis that the defendant is the real estate developer,It should be assumed that it can foresee the upward trend of the price of the shops involved when entering into a contract of sale, therefore, the defendant should compensate for the premium interest.Finally, in the sample case, the defendant's breach behavior accords with the general constitutive requirements of punitive damages in the field of tort, and also accords with the dominant subject of breach of contract in the field of punitive damages, and the moral irregularity of breach of contract.The general characteristics of the non-closed nature of the damage consequences. Article 8 of the Supreme people's Court on the interpretation of certain legal issues applicable to the trial of disputes over the sale and purchase of commercial housing also stipulates that after a developer has signed a contract for the purchase and sale of commercial housing with the buyer,The sale of the underlying house to others should bear the liability of less than twice the amount paid, so a home purchase company should be liable for punitive damages.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D920.5;D923.2

【参考文献】