Lawyer Zhang Jing in Guangzhou answered: Effective. If the buyer and the seller have other contractual relationships before, and when the house is bought and sold, the two parties negotiate the transfer of equity money, rent, and purchase price into the purchase price, and such agreement is valid as long as it does not violate the mandatory provisions of the law. In the following case, the court held that the agreement between the parties to convert the equity proceeds into the purchase price was valid.
Excerpt from the verdict:
The court held that the Shop Purchase Letter signed between the Malaysian buyer and the developer was legal and valid. On the issue of whether the $2 million paid by the horse buyer under the framework agreement could be converted into the payment to be made by the horse buyer under the subscription contract in this case. In March 2008, the Malaysian buyer and the developer signed the "Framework Agreement" to pay 8.4 million yuan in installments to obtain the equity, but the Malaysian buyer only paid 2 million yuan to the developer, and now neither party has adduced evidence to prove that there is a subsequent performance of the "framework agreement" and the expression of intent, and after the developer issued the "Equity Cooperation Customer Selection Confirmation" in November 2008 confirmed that the Malaysian buyer enjoyed preferential policies such as converting the equity money into the purchase price. The Ma Buyer then signed a subscription contract with the developer to subscribe to the shop involved in the case from the developer, and agreed that on the premise that the Ma Buyer signed and performed the subscription letter, the developer would separately notify the Ma Buyer of the specific delivery time, and the Ma Buyer received the shop involved in the case from the developer in 2012, and the developer's above-mentioned acts showed that it confirmed that the Ma Buyer had fulfilled the payment as stipulated in the subscription letter, and the Ma Buyer's claim that the 2 million yuan had been converted into the payment required by the Ma Buyer in the subscription contract in this case was reasonable. In addition, in the course of the trial of another case closely related to the case, the developer's client also confirmed that the 2 million yuan received was the deposit of the Malaysian buyer for the purchase of three shops, including the shops in this case. Therefore, the Ma buyer's claim that the RMB 2 million had been converted was reasonable and well-founded, and the court affirmed it.