Real estate appraisal price in legal disputes! Guiding price market price

Real estate appraisal price in legal disputes! Guiding price market price

Case (202 1) Guangdong 0303 762 1

The transaction property that caused the lawsuit is a degree room in Luohu District, Shenzhen. The case is simple and classic. It can be seen from the communication between the two parties and the intermediary that it is an obvious breach of contract for the seller to find an excuse not to sell. After the communication failed, the buyer sued the court and demanded the seller to pay liquidated damages, amounting to 20% of the total contract amount. The seller thinks that the amount of liquidated damages is too high.

Let's take a look at the prices offered by both parties to the dispute: the plaintiff and the buyer submitted the auction details of Ali 202 1 year on February 5, which shows that the auction price of the property located in Luohu District of Shenzhen is 7757 179 yuan. The printed screenshots of the website submitted by the defendant and the seller can show that: Jingbei South Residential Area, with a construction area of 96 square meters, the government reference unit price is 56,000 yuan/square meter, and the total price is 5.38 million yuan; Beijing North South Residential Area, with a construction area of 96.82 square meters, has a government reference unit price of 56,000 yuan/square meter and a total price of 5.42 million yuan. At this point, the real estate agent as a third person spoke, saying that the evidence provided by the seller belongs to the government-guided price, which is 7.5 fold of the market price.

The court found that the result is:

The auction details of Ali on February 5th, 20021year and the confirmation of successful bidding submitted by the plaintiff show that the auction price of the property involved in the same community is 7757 179 yuan, which can prove the approximate difference between the market value of the property involved except the contract involved and the transfer price of the contract involved, which is enough to prove that the plaintiff's loss after the contract is terminated is objective and huge.

The online sales price of the same residential property submitted by the defendant has been expressed as the government guidance price, not the actual transaction price, which cannot prove that the liquidated damages of 20% of the total house price agreed in the contract are excessively higher than the plaintiff's loss. Finally, the court upheld the plaintiff's claim that the defendant should pay 20% of the total contract price (1262,000 yuan).

And discussed: "According to the actual situation of this case and the comprehensive factors such as the plaintiff's fault-free, the defendant's breach of contract, and the failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the standard of liquidated damages is too high than the plaintiff's loss, in line with the principle of maintaining social and economic order and honesty and credit, civil violations will be punished to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the observant party. Our court does not support the defendant's claim to reduce the amount of liquidated damages, and the defendant should pay 1 262,000 yuan (63 1 0,000 yuan x0%) to the plaintiff.

analyse

As can be seen from the above cases, when adjusting the liquidated damages, the court in this case took the transaction price of Ali auction market as the basis to prove the loss, and thought that the government-guided price could not be used to prove the loss.

Taking the case handled by the author's team as an example, in the litigation, due to the strong opposition between the two parties, the real estate price advocated by one party is often not recognized by the other party, and finally the court entrusts a third-party appraisal agency to evaluate the real estate price.

However, when a family dispute in litigation wants to divide the real estate, because of its particularity, that is, the two parties were originally husband and wife, they are often willing to confirm the value of the real estate involved in order to save the evaluation fee. The judge will also explain that in this case, there is no need to entrust the evaluation, saving money and time.

If you are not at ease, both parties can go to three shops to find out the current price of the property involved, so as to finally determine a more fair price. In addition to the government guidance price of the second-hand housing market mentioned above, there is also the guidance price of the rental market. As can be seen from official website, a leasing association in Shenzhen, the latest guide price for housing leasing in Shenzhen is 20 17, which has not been released in the following years.

In fact, no matter what kind of guidance price it is, we need to consider clearly what its purpose is. Man-made guidance is imposed, and finally there is guidance; Finally, a hide-and-seek price was set, which made the price lose its original meaning. Furthermore, if the price does not reflect the real value of the product in the market, it must be the wrong price. As reflected in the previous case, the court's decision is ultimately based on the market price, not the guidance price. If the price hides from the cat, the price is useless (oh, this is not rigorous, at least it hits the price of second-hand housing). We should believe that in a free market with full competition and many changes of hands, the price can reflect the value.