發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-17 15:54

  本文選題：定購(gòu)單 + 溢價(jià)利益　； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：商品房定購(gòu)糾紛一直是理論研究和司法實(shí)踐的重要內(nèi)容。樣本案例中，原告劉某與被告某置業(yè)公司就原告與被告間是否形成商品房買賣合同關(guān)系、正式簽約日與定購(gòu)單簽訂日是否是同一日及被告承擔(dān)何種賠償責(zé)任產(chǎn)生了較大的分歧。首先，定購(gòu)單本質(zhì)是預(yù)約合同，但在具備合同成立必要條款，且出售方依約接受購(gòu)房款條件時(shí)，定購(gòu)單即被視為商品房買賣合同。其次，格式條款有兩種以上不同解釋時(shí)，當(dāng)作不利于格式條款提供方的解釋，所以某置業(yè)公司主張的正式簽約日與定購(gòu)單簽訂日為同一日不能被認(rèn)定。再者，涉案商鋪價(jià)格上漲產(chǎn)生的溢價(jià)利益是履行利益，應(yīng)當(dāng)由違約方賠償，同時(shí)，基于被告是房地產(chǎn)開(kāi)發(fā)商，應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定其在訂立買賣合同關(guān)系時(shí)能夠預(yù)見(jiàn)涉案商鋪價(jià)格上漲的趨勢(shì)，因此，被告應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)此溢價(jià)利益予以賠償。最后，樣本案例中被告的違約行為符合侵權(quán)領(lǐng)域懲罰性損害賠償?shù)囊话銟?gòu)成要件，也符合合同領(lǐng)域懲罰性損害賠償?shù)倪`約主體強(qiáng)勢(shì)性、違約行為道德非難性、損害后果非封閉性的一般特征，《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理商品房買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》第8條也規(guī)定了，開(kāi)發(fā)商在與購(gòu)房者簽訂商品房買賣合同后，將標(biāo)的房屋售予他人，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)已付房款一倍以下的賠償責(zé)任，，因此某置業(yè)公司應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)懲罰性損害賠償責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:Commercial housing purchase dispute has been an important content of theoretical research and judicial practice.In the sample case, the plaintiff Liu and a property company of the defendant have a great disagreement on whether the contract relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is formed for the purchase and sale of commercial housing, whether the date of the formal signing and the date of signing the purchase order are the same day and what kind of liability the defendant bears.First of all, the purchase order is an appointment contract, but when it has the necessary terms to establish the contract, and the seller accepts the condition of the purchase, the purchase order is regarded as the contract of purchase and sale of commercial housing.Secondly, when there are more than two different interpretations of the form clause, it is considered to be unfavorable to the provider of the format clause, so the formal contract date advocated by a home purchase company and the purchase order signing date cannot be considered as the same date.Furthermore, the premium interest arising from the increase in the prices of the shops involved is the benefit of performance, which should be compensated by the defaulting party, and on the basis that the defendant is the real estate developer,It should be assumed that it can foresee the upward trend of the price of the shops involved when entering into a contract of sale, therefore, the defendant should compensate for the premium interest.Finally, in the sample case, the defendant's breach behavior accords with the general constitutive requirements of punitive damages in the field of tort, and also accords with the dominant subject of breach of contract in the field of punitive damages, and the moral irregularity of breach of contract.The general characteristics of the non-closed nature of the damage consequences. Article 8 of the Supreme people's Court on the interpretation of certain legal issues applicable to the trial of disputes over the sale and purchase of commercial housing also stipulates that after a developer has signed a contract for the purchase and sale of commercial housing with the buyer,The sale of the underlying house to others should bear the liability of less than twice the amount paid, so a home purchase company should be liable for punitive damages.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D920.5;D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王利明;美國(guó)懲罰性賠償制度研究[J];比較法研究;2003年05期

2 董文軍;;論我國(guó)《消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法》中的懲罰性賠償[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年02期

3 陳凌云;;效率違約遏制論——以完善違約損害賠償責(zé)任為線索[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2011年01期

4 仇云霞,何維國(guó);合同責(zé)任中懲罰性損害賠償?shù)倪m用——以美國(guó)法的規(guī)定為例[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2002年02期

5 李正;;試論懲罰性賠償?shù)墓δ躘J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2010年06期

6 楊明月;試評(píng)最高人民法院《關(guān)于審理商品房買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》中的懲罰性賠償規(guī)定[J];中國(guó)房地產(chǎn);2005年04期

7 黃清華;;維護(hù)市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)法治精神須完善合同法——剖析深圳“問(wèn)題商鋪”買賣合同案[J];海峽法學(xué);2013年01期

8 韓世遠(yuǎn);違約損害賠償序說(shuō)[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;1998年05期

9 張良;;論合同法限制完全賠償?shù)囊?guī)則[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

10 譚睿娟;;兩大法系可預(yù)見(jiàn)性規(guī)則適用問(wèn)題的比較研究[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年03期

本文編號(hào)：1764258