Xue Liwan has a three-bedroom house, which was rented to Hong Zhicheng in 2008. The two sides signed a three-year lease contract. In 2009, Xue Liwan saw the local housing prices rising, and felt that the rent given by Hong Zhicheng was too low, and he planned to break the contract.
Through the introduction of intermediary agencies, Xue Liwan got in touch with Wang Wenming, who lives in other places. Wang Wenming is satisfied with the size and location of Xue Liwan's house, and the price is higher. Xue Liwan immediately offered to rent the house to Wang Wenming and urged him to move in as soon as possible. Both parties have gone through the lease procedures and checked in. Wang Wenming believed it and moved to this place with his family. During this period, Xue Liwan proposed to Hong Xiang Zhicheng that his relatives wanted to move here and needed housing, and asked to cancel the contract. Hong Zhicheng flatly refused, thinking that both parties had a contract first and should continue to perform it according to the contract. After many consultations, the two sides failed to reach an agreement.
After Wang Wenming and his family moved to this place, they found that Xue Liwan's house had been rented to someone else, who refused to vacate it. In desperation, they had to stay in a local hotel. Wang Wenming asked Xue Liwan to compensate for his own losses. Xue Liwan believes that the two sides did not sign a house lease contract and refused to pay compensation. The two sides disputed this and brought a lawsuit to the people's court.
[Expert Comment]
In this case, the lease promise made by Xue Liwan as the lessor is actually dishonest and deceptive, and cannot be regarded as a true expression of will. From this point of view, the lease contract in this case failed to be established. Secondly, the original defendant and the defendant did not reach an agreement on how to deliver the leased property and how to pay the rent, and they did not have the necessary terms of the contract, further indicating that the lease contract was not established. Since the contract has not been established, Xue Liwan certainly does not bear the liability for breach of contract.
Article 42 of China's "Contract Law" stipulates: "In the process of concluding a contract, if one of the following circumstances causes losses to the other party, it shall be liable for damages: (1) concluding a contract under the guise of malicious negotiation; (2) Deliberately concealing important facts related to the conclusion of a contract or providing false information; (3) Other acts that violate the principle of good faith. " In this case, Xue Liwan should bear the responsibility of contracting fault and compensate the plaintiff for the loss, that is, the extra expenses caused by living without a house.