Homebuyer Awarded CNY 12,685 in Late Property Certificate Case
A homebuyer in Eastern China City was awarded CNY 12,685.13 in liquidated damages after the court found that a real estate developer had breached a contract by failing to submit documents for property ownership certificates within the agreed period. The plaintiff, Mr. Xu, had purchased an apartment from the defendant, Tianyi Real Estate Co., Ltd., in 2006. The contract required the developer to file the necessary documents with the registration authority within 180 days of delivering the property. Mr. Xu opted not to rescind the contract and instead sought the contractual penalty of three percent of the purchase price.
The parties signed a商品房买卖合同 (commercial housing sales contract) on October 13, 2006, for a unit in the Xinchang residential complex. The total price was initially CNY 422,392, but after adjustments for actual floor area, Mr. Xu paid CNY 422,837.80. The developer delivered the apartment on August 8, 2007, and also collected fees for tax and certificate processing, undertaking to handle the ownership documents on Mr. Xu’s behalf. Despite these steps, the developer did not submit the required documents to the property registration office within 180 days. It was not until October 12, 2009, that the developer posted a notice stating that residents could begin applying for certificates. Mr. Xu eventually received his property ownership certificate on January 16, 2010.
During the hearing, the plaintiff presented several pieces of evidence: the signed contract showing the terms and penalty clause, a payment invoice confirming the final purchase price, a notice of delivery and receipt for certificate fees, a copy of the developer’s October 2009 notice, and the title certificate itself. The defendant failed to appear in court despite being properly summoned, and did not submit any written defense or evidence. The court therefore treated the defendant as having waived its right to challenge the evidence. After review, the court found the plaintiff’s evidence authentic, legally obtained, and internally consistent, and therefore admitted it all.
The court held that the contract was valid and binding on both parties. The defendant had accepted the certificate-processing fees and had effectively assumed the duty to obtain the certificates. Under the contract, the developer was required to file the registration materials within 180 days of delivery. The court noted that the defendant offered no proof that it had met that deadline or that the delay was beyond its control. Consequently, the developer was in breach of the contract. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the delay was caused by conflicting local and provincial regulations on green space ratios, because even if a third party caused the delay, the law still holds the contracting party liable to the buyer.
Under Article 121 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, if one party defaults due to a third party’s act, that party must still bear liability to the other party. The court emphasized that the defendant had the burden of proving it was not at fault, and it failed to do so. The defendant’s additional claims that the plaintiff had altered the apartment’s structure and that the lawsuit was time-barred were not substantiated with evidence. The statute of limitations argument was also rejected because the court calculated the starting point from the date the plaintiff actually received the certificate, not from the theoretical deadline.
This case illustrates that developers cannot escape contractual liability for delayed property certificate registration by blaming government agencies or local policy conflicts. Buyers who choose not to rescind the contract retain the right to claim the agreed liquidated damages. The court’s decision reaffirms that the contractual deadline for filing documents is strictly enforceable, and that the burden of proof lies with the developer to show compliance or an excusable delay. For homebuyers, it is prudent to retain all receipts, notices, and correspondence regarding certificate processing.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.