顶层复式住宅预售赠送天台花园之约定无效（Penthouse penthouse residential sale of rooftop garden, the agreement is invalid）.doc

顶层复式住宅预售赠送天台花园之约定无效（Penthouse penthouse residential sale of rooftop garden, the agreement is invalid） The penthouse roof garden residential sale gift contract invalid Published: 2008-6-19 15:07:48 lawyer: administrator Views: 207 The appellant (plaintiff): Liu Appellee (defendant): a Real Estate Company [case] In March 2000, a Real Estate Company agreed with Liu signed subscription book: a building Liu subscribe to a penthouse floor room, the two sides agreed to before the signing of the formal pre-sale contract, the subscription book for effective contract; Real Estate Company sent Liu rooftop garden area of about 93.9 square meters. In April of the same year, Real Estate Company and Liu signed a real estate sale contract, but the two sides have not agreed terms listed in the subscription book. In April 2000 the Real Estate Company promotional advertising also introduced in the grand launch of the penthouse roof garden during the exhibition will be sent. Rooftop garden after Liu was not awarded by the court to sue, the Real Estate Company donated rooftop gardens and compensation for economic losses. The Real Estate Company commissioned the agent. [trial] Court of first instance that: Liu and Real Estate Company signed a subscription book pre-sale contract and the Real Estate Company will be valid; Tiantai promise to use the whole building is common to all owners presented to Liu, the actor is invalid; Liu failed to provide sufficient evidence of its failure to be loss of donated rooftop garden, ask the Real Estate Company to compensate for the losses the claim is not established. Court verdict: dismissed the plaintiffs claim liu. Liu refused to accept the verdict, to the city intermediate peoples Court of Appeal said: the court rejected the claim was not justified, request for revocation of the original judgment, the Real Estate Company cannot receive the compensation to the loss of rooftop garden. Real Estate Company argued that: agree with the original judgment.