The hottest Nanjing citizens buy school district h

  • Detail

Nanjing citizens buy "No registered permanent residence" school district houses, but their student status is occupied

the buyer tells the seller that the other party is in breach of contract and claims 170000 yuan. The account without children in the school district house bought by

means that the student status in the house must not be occupied? The answer is No. Ms. Wang, a citizen of Nanjing, suffered this loss. Ms. Wang angrily took the seller to the court to claim liquidated damages of more than 170000 yuan, but the court held that the seller promised "no account occupation". When Ms. Wang bought the house, there was no account in the house, so the seller was not in breach of contract and rejected Ms. Wang's application

buy a school district house at a high price. The contract stipulates that "No registered permanent residence occupies the school district"

in June 2013, Ms. Wang purchased a house of more than 50 square meters owned by Mr. Zhao and his wife through an intermediary. This house is a school district house of a famous school in Xuanwu District, with a unit price of more than 33000 yuan and a total price of 1.75 million yuan

when the contract was signed, Ms. Wang clearly stated that the purpose of the purchase was to enable children to attend a primary school in the next year. If the housing school district was occupied, she would not purchase it. The uneven sound of Mr. Zhao's watch showed that their registered permanent residence was not in the room, and the school district of the house was not occupied. For the sake of insurance, both parties agreed in paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the contract: Mr. and Mrs. Zhao promise that there is no registered permanent residence occupying the school district at present. In addition, both parties also agreed that if either party breaches the contract, it must pay 10% of the total house price, that is, 175000 yuan, as liquidated damages to the observant party. Subsequently, the two sides signed a formal housing sales contract, once again agreed on the above housing transactions, and completed the transfer of property rights and housing delivery

when signing up, the school informed that the student status was occupied

however, in May 2014, when Ms. Wang went to school with her children full of expectation, an accident occurred. After checking Ms. Wang's property ownership certificate, the school told her that there was still a child in use in the school registration of this house, and this child was the child of Mr. Zhao and his wife. Ms. Wang was so angry that she felt cheated by Mr. Zhao and his wife. Later, she took Mr. and Mrs. Zhao to the court. Request the court to order Mr. Zhao and his wife to pay 175000 yuan as liquidated damages

in court, Mr. Zhao and his wife said that what they promised in the contract was that no registered permanent residence occupied the school district on the date of signing the contract, and the registered permanent residence of their family of three had been moved out since June 2011. Until the trial, their family had no registered permanent residence in the house for sale. It fully meets the agreement of both parties in the contract, and there is no breach of contract. Ms. Wang's real estate certificate was registered in September, 2013, while she went to a primary school to register in May, 2014. The time of settlement was less than one year, which did not meet the requirements of the school that all students chose polycarbonate materials and settled for three years. Ms. Wang's children were rejected. It's not something they can control. They can only occupy the school district without registered permanent residence when signing the agreement

not having a registered permanent residence does not mean that the student status has not been occupied

so, is it really because Ms. Wang's child was refused admission to school that she bought a house and settled in less than three years? Court investigation found that this was only part of the reason. The real reason is that the government's excessive dependence on real estate in 2013 put the entire real economy in a dilemma. In June, when Ms. Wang and Mr. Zhao signed a real estate sales contract, Mr. Zhao's children were still in the fifth grade of a primary school, and they did not graduate from a primary school until June 2014. Therefore, when Ms. Wang signs up for her children in May 2014, the school will say the student status of the school district room purchased by Ms. Wang. 3) choose next step in the installation readiness window; It is occupied because Mr. Zhao's children are still one month away from graduation, and indeed occupy their school status. After the dispute occurred, Mr. Zhao and his wife assisted Ms. Wang to find the relevant leaders and teachers of the school to explain the situation, and the school was quite reasonable. After finding out that Mr. Zhao's son had graduated from school, they agreed to accept Ms. Wang's child to enter the school normally in September of that year

after ascertaining the facts, the court held that, from the literal meaning of the contract terms, "there is no school district occupied by any registered permanent residence at present", which means that there is no registered residence population in the house studying in the school district school at the time of signing the contract, which is not a parallel expression of neither registered permanent residence nor school district occupation. The daughter of Ms. Wang has entered the school in September 2014 as an internal student of the school district because the room is a school district room. The purpose of the contract has been achieved, and Ms. Wang has no loss. Therefore, the judgment rejected Ms. Wang's application. The judge reminded that when purchasing school district housing, you must understand the enrollment policy to prevent trouble for yourself

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI