顶层复式住宅预售赠送天台花园之约定无效(The penthouse roof garden residential sale gift contract invalid).doc

顶层复式住宅预售赠送天台花园之约定无效(The penthouse roof garden residential sale gift contract invalid).doc

  1. 1、本文档共7页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
顶层复式住宅预售赠送天台花园之约定无效(The penthouse roof garden residential sale gift contract invalid)

顶层复式住宅预售赠送天台花园之约定无效(The penthouse roof garden residential sale gift contract 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. Second instance

文档评论(0)

jgx3536 + 关注
实名认证
内容提供者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

版权声明书
用户编号:6111134150000003

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档