Dowa Case Analysis | Husband Sells House Unilaterally and Breaches Contract, Wife Not Obligated to Bear Breach of Contract Liability

Suppose the husband, without the wife's knowledge, unilaterally sells the jointly-owned house to another person, and then regrets and delays in cooperating with the buyer to transfer the property. The buyer lists both the husband and wife as co-defendants, demanding the return of the purchase price and the payment of liquidated damages.

Does the wife, who was unaware of the situation, need to bear the liability for the breach of contract?

One, Basic Case

Li Mou and Huang Mou are a married couple. Li Mou signed a "House Purchase and Sale Agreement" with Zhang Mou without Huang Mou's knowledge.

The agreement stipulates that Zhang Mou purchases the jointly-owned property of Li Mou and Huang Mou, a house located in a local residential area, with a total value of 525,000 yuan. After the agreement is signed, Zhang Mou pays the initial payment of 375,000 yuan to Li Mou, so that Li Mou and Huang Mou can repay the mortgage to the bank. After the parties complete the property transfer registration, Zhang Mou will pay the remaining balance of 150,000 yuan to Li Mou in one installment. If Li Mou breaches the contract, he must return the initial payment of 375,000 yuan and pay 30% of the total contract amount as liquidated damages.

On the day the agreement was signed, Zhang Mou paid the initial payment to Li Mou, but Li Mou failed to comply with the agreement and return the mortgage to the bank, nor did he fulfill the obligations defined in the agreement.

Therefore, Zhang Mou sued both Li Mou and Huang Mou as co-defendants, requesting the court to dissolve the "House Purchase and Sale Agreement" signed by the parties and require the defendants to return the initial payment of 375,000 yuan and pay liquidated damages of 157,500 yuan.

Upon investigation, the house is registered in the names of Li Mou and Huang Mou, and is jointly owned by the couple. During the trial, all parties confirmed that Huang Mou did not sign or stamp on the case-related contract, and only Li Mou's signature was present on the buyer's side.

Two, Court Decision

After the court's hearing, it was determined that the case-related contract is a true expression of the intention between Li Mou and Zhang Mou, and therefore the contract has legal binding force between the two parties.

However, the case-related house is jointly owned by Li Mou and Huang Mou, and Huang Mou did not sign or stamp on the case-related contract and did not ratify it. Therefore, Li Mou's act of selling the house is an unauthorized disposition. Moreover, according to the principle of "he who asserts must prove," the plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove that Huang Mou was aware and received or used the initial payment for the purchase, so the contract does not have legal binding force on Huang Mou.

Therefore, the court ruled to dissolve the case-related contract signed between the plaintiff Zhang Mou and the defendant Li Mou, and Li Mou must repay the initial payment of 375,000 yuan to the plaintiff Zhang Mou and pay liquidated damages of 157,500 yuan.

After the judgment was announced, neither party appealed.

Three, Dao Hua Analysis

The jointly-owned house of a married couple is an important part of the family's property and a common target for sale in the real estate market.

When buying a house, the buyer should pay attention to reviewing the ownership of the house. Once a dispute arises, it will cause the buyer to suffer losses and affect the normal order of real estate transactions.

In the above case, Li Mou unilaterally sold the jointly-owned house without Huang Mou's knowledge, which is an unauthorized disposition in civil law. However, because the buyer was unaware of the unauthorized disposition and had reason to believe that Li Mou had the right to dispose of the house and paid a reasonable consideration, the buyer is a good faith third party. Therefore, the court ruled that the case-related contract is valid, and the husband Li Mou should bear the responsibility alone to the seller.

The handling of this case not only protects the contract rights of the good faith third party Zhang Mou but also effectively avoids the transaction risks of jointly-owned houses.

Therefore, when buying a house, if it is found that the house is jointly-owned property, both the buyer and the seller should be required to sign in person and show the marriage certificate; if one party is really unable to arrive at the scene, a legally valid written authorization procedure should also be provided.

It is worth mentioning that in cases similar to this, if the buyer is a good faith third party and has already registered the real estate, the buyer can obtain ownership of the house.