Court Awards CNY 3945.37 for Late Property Certificate

A dispute over delayed property certificate registration has resulted in a court award of CNY 3945.37 in favor of a home buyer in Eastern China City. The court found that a real estate company breached its contractual obligation to submit necessary documents for property ownership certificates within 180 days after delivering the apartment. The buyer, who chose not to rescind the contract, was entitled to a penalty equal to 3 percent of the total purchase price.

The buyer, identified as Mr. Li, entered into a商品房 sales contract with the defendant real estate company on January 25, 2007. The contract covered a unit in a residential complex located in Eastern China City, with a total purchase price of CNY 131,512.50. A key clause under Article 15 required the seller to submit all documents needed for property registration to the relevant authority within 180 days of delivering the property. If the seller’s fault caused the buyer to miss the deadline for obtaining the ownership certificate, the buyer could either rescind the contract and receive a 5 percent penalty, or keep the property and claim a 3 percent penalty on the paid price. The seller delivered the apartment on August 8, 2007, and also collected fees from Mr. Li to handle the certificate applications on his behalf. However, the certificates were not issued until April 2010, well beyond the contractual deadline. Mr. Li opted to keep the apartment and sued for the 3 percent penalty, amounting to CNY 3945.37.

During the court hearing, Mr. Li presented several pieces of evidence: the original sales contract, a payment receipt showing the full purchase price, a delivery notice and fee receipt from August 2007, a public notice posted by the defendant on October 12, 2009, informing residents that certificate applications could finally begin, and the property ownership certificate issued on April 9, 2010. The defendant company failed to appear at the hearing and submitted no evidence or written objections. The court therefore accepted the plaintiff’s evidence as truthful and lawful, noting that the defendant had waived its right to challenge the evidence.

The court held that the sales contract was legally formed and binding on both parties. The defendant had collected fees from the buyer for handling the certificate process, thereby assuming the duty to complete registration in a timely manner. The defendant did not provide any proof that it had submitted the required documents to the registration authority within 180 days of delivery, nor did it show that the delay was