Guangzhou lawyer Zhang Jing answered: If the two parties cannot reach an agreement because of the online signing time, the reason for not being able to reach a transaction cannot be attributed to either party, and the deposit can be refunded. Both parties are required to provide evidence. In the following case, the buyer paid a deposit of 1 million yuan to buy the entire floor of the house, and the subscription letter did not stipulate the time for online signing, and then the seller said that it would take 8 months to sign online, and the buyer felt that the time was too long and did not agree. In the end, the court ordered the deposit to be refunded.
Excerpt from the verdict:
The court held that although the two parties did not sign a written sales contract or other relevant agreements, both parties confirmed that they had reached an intention to buy and sell the entire floor of an office building in Huangpu District, Guangzhou, and Xie paid a deposit of 1 million yuan to Li's company, and a commercial housing reservation contract relationship was formed between the two parties. In view of the fact that the two parties did not sign a sales contract or a deposit contract for the house involved in the case, according to the WeChat chat records submitted by the two parties, the content of the communication between the two parties has always been the specific time of online signing, and there is no mention of the concealment of the fact of mortgage by the house involved in the case, it can be determined that Xie was clearly aware of the fact that the house involved in the case was mortgaged during the negotiation of the sale and purchase of the house involved in the case. However, both parties were aware of the fact that the house involved in the case was mortgaged and still reached an agreement on the sale, but the sale and purchase contract could not be signed due to the fact that the mortgage of the house involved in the case could not be signed online, and both parties were at fault and should bear corresponding responsibilities in accordance with the law. Xie's claim that the company should return the deposit and pay interest twice is groundless in law and is not supported in accordance with the law. Li's company should return the deposit of 1 million yuan and interest to Xie.