The son sold his mother's room, the court: the sales contract does not take effect on the mother

The man signed a house trading contract with the buyer in his name, and sold his mother's name. The mother asked the son -in -law to sign the house signed and selling contracts signed by the buyer for the invalidity of the house and the buyer. After hearing, the Haidian Court confirmed that the house sale contract did not have legal effect on Ms. Zhao.

The plaintiff Ms. Zhao claimed that Mr. Lin had a relationship with her mother and child. Ms. Wang still signed a house trading contract with Mr. Lin to know that Mr. Lin surpassed his agency rights and transferred Ms. Zhao's name. After receiving the house sale of 200,000 yuan, Mr. Lin and Ms. Wang had different behaviors, and then Mr. Lin returned a number of behaviors such as Ms. Wang 200,000 yuan. These behaviors violated her fundamental interests. It is required to confirm that the buying and selling contract signed by Mr. Lin and Ms. Wang is invalid.

The defendant Ms. Wang argued that in terms of facts, Ms. Zhao's behavior of selling houses was true. The intermediary company also participated in the entire process of buying and selling the house. Agree with Ms. Zhao's claim.

The defendant Mr. Lin argued that he was a house sale and selling contract signed by his mother and Ms. Wang, but in the process of signing the contract, there were indeed unclear commission procedures. Ms. Wang knew this. Although it was goodwill, he believed that Ms. Zhao's rights and interests were damaged to a certain extent, and Ms. Zhao refused to accept the contract and asked the court to make a decision in accordance with the law.

The third -party intermediary company stated that Mr. Lin was holding Ms. Zhao's attorney, real estate certificate, authorization attorney, and the original ID card of Ms. Zhao to the store at the time. The three parties signed a contract in the conference room in the store. After verification with the company's agent Mr. Shi, Mr. Shi met Ms. Zhao himself at the north gate of the Construction Committee. At that time, Ms. Zhao took the original materials needed for the transfer of transfer. Therefore, the transfer of the transfer was therefore not completed that day.

During the trial of the case, Ms. Zhao submitted a paid letter to the house sales, saying that Ms. Zhao's signature on the attorney was not signed by herself. In this regard, Ms. Wang and the intermediary company stated that they did not know the matter when signing the contract, but they all recognized the fact that Ms. Zhao's signature was signed by Mr. Lin. Mr. Lin submitted a WeChat chat record with the staff of the intermediary company. After the time of the chat history was signed, the content of the intermediary company asked Mr. Lin to ask Mr. Lin, Ms. Zhao's telephone and ID photo, and the original entrusted letter of the house.

Mr. Lin used this to prove that the agency did not review the original materials during the transaction between the two parties. The intermediary company said that the transaction had reviewed the above materials at the time, but the above materials were not found in the later period. Therefore, Mr. Lin asked Mr. Lin to submit again Photos of the above materials. Mr. Lin also submitted a bank transaction details to prove that after Ms. Wang remitted the house deposit of 200,000 yuan to the Mr. Lin's account, the money had been in Mr. Lin's account, and then transferred to Ms. Wang.

At the same time, the "House Sale Contract" signed by Mr. Lin and Ms. Wang stated: "If there is no commissioned notarization, the receipt account designated by the agent must be the seller's account, otherwise the designated account will be invalid."

After hearing, the court believed that Ms. Zhao refused to pursue Mr. Lin's no right to act, and whether Mr. Lin's behavior constituted an agent in this case determined whether the contract involved in the case had effective in the case. Although the intermediary company advocated the signing of the original real estate certificates and original identity cards such as the real estate certificate carried by Mr. Lin at the time, they did not retain evidence on the spot. The copy of the material has reason to believe that the agency has not reviewed the original materials at the time when the intermediary company signed the contract.

When Mr. Lin signed the contract involved in the case, Ms. Wang and the intermediary company knew that the property rights of the house were registered under Ms. Zhao's name, but when the contract was signed, the original necessary materials were not reviewed. Ms. Wang did not see Ms. Zhao during the signing of the contract, nor did she contact Ms. Zhao to confirm the authenticity of the authorization. Although the witness of the intermediary company proved to have seen Ms. Zhao when I was transferred, she failed to provide valid evidence of this evidence. Give evidence, the witness testimony is only an orphan.

In the case of the contract involved in the case clearly stipulated that there was no commission notarization notarization, the receipt account designated by the agent must be the seller's account. However, when Mr. Lin did not issue a notarization of the payment of the payment, Ms. Wang and the intermediary company approved and Ms. Wang's actual payment of the house deposit was Mr. Lin's personal account, and the deposit never transferred to Ms. Zhao's name. Essence Combined with the above three analysis, the court believes that Ms. Wang and the intermediary company did not enter the prudent notes when setting up a contract. Mr. Lin's behavior did not constitute an agent, and the contract involved in the case did not have the effect on Ms. Zhao. In the end, the court ruled that Mr. Lin signed with Ms. Wang in the name of Ms. Zhao and Ms. Wang did not have the effect of Ms. Zhao.

After the verdict, Ms. Wang appealed, and the second instance maintained the original sentence. The judgment has come into effect.

Judge said:

Article 171 of the "People's Republic of China" stipulates: "After the perpetrator does not have an agency, transcending the agency, or the termination of the agency, the acting behavior is still implemented. If the agent is recognized Effectiveness. "The law has made corresponding provisions on the legal consequences of no authority. If the actor has no right to act, the legal consequences of the agency behavior will no longer be restrained by the agent. Article 172 stipulates that "the perpetrator does not have an agency right, transcendence of agency rights, or the termination of agency rights, and still implements agency behaviors. The relative person has reasons to believe that the actor has agency rights and the agency behavior is valid." This is the law of the law on the agent. In judicial practice, if the opposite person claims to constitute an agent, it shall bear the responsibility of proof. Goodwill and no fault, that is, the agency system not only requires the agent without proxy rights to objectively form a appearance of agency rights, but also requires the counterparts to be subjectively goodwill and no loss of land. In this case, in combination with the above facts, Ms. Wang has certain negligence in subjectively, which does not constitute a composition of the agent of goodwill and no fault. Therefore, Mr. Lin's behavior does not constitute an agent. Generally, the signing contract does not have the effect on the acting agent, Ms. Zhao.

It should be noted that there are two kinds of legal consequences that may be generated without the right to proxy. If the counterparts are recognized, the agency behavior is directly restrained by the agent and the counterpart; if the counterpart refuses to recover, although the acting behavior does not have the effect on the agent, the contract set by the actor and the counterpart is still valid, but it is only in the original basic law. The relationship was changed in the relationship between the actor and the counterparty, and the legal consequences caused by the actor to undertake the contract or delay the performance of the contract.

(The characters in the text are all about the name)

Wen/Haidian Court Ni Hong

- END -