Guangzhou lawyer Zhang Jing answers: In practice, in the process of second-hand housing transactions, there will be various unexpected situations at the stage of issuing the same loan letter. The bank may make various requirements before agreeing to issue a letter of loan, and whether the seller needs to cooperate at this time, and whether it constitutes a breach of contract if it does not cooperate, needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, if it is a special request from a certain bank and other banks do not have this requirement, the seller can refuse to cooperate. If all banks have this requirement, the seller cannot refuse, and if it refuses, it constitutes a breach of contract. In the following case, because the house was connected to the adjacent house, the bank required the seller to agree to issue the same loan letter after the seller had separated the house, and the latest transfer time had already passed. The seller uses this to claim that the buyer is in breach of contract and seeks compensation. After the trial, the court held that the situation was unforeseeable when the two parties signed the contract, and the seller should cooperate with the bank's request, and the delay in the transaction caused by this did not constitute a breach of contract by the buyer. Now the seller requests to terminate the contract on this ground, which is a breach of contract by the seller, and the seller is judged to be liable for breach of contract.
Excerpt from the verdict:
The court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was the determination of liability for breach of contract for the termination of the sales contract involved in the lawsuit. The contract stipulates that "Party A and Party B shall complete the transfer and submission procedures of this transaction with the real estate registration agency within 15 days (no later than March 1, 2021) after the lending institution issues a notice of consent to the loan or a reply to the relevant intention and meets the conditions for the transfer of ownership delivery". According to the ascertained facts, the lending bank did not approve the loan approval procedures until March 2, 2021, which has exceeded the aforesaid agreed closing time. In the process of applying for a mortgage loan, the mortgage company notified the seller to vacate the house in order to pass the loan appraisal, and the seller notified the mortgage company to complete the interval until February 17, 2021, until the appraisal report was issued on February 22, 2021. Although Buyer Liu was aware of the use of the house before signing the contract, this circumstance may result in the loan appraisal not being foreseeable by Buyer Liu when he signed the contract, and Seller Xiao also has the obligation to assist Buyer Liu in completing the mortgage procedures, and the aforesaid delay is not caused by Buyer Liu. In addition, if the contract stipulates that the performance of the obligations agreed in this contract is overdue for more than 15 days, the non-breaching party has the right to terminate the contract. After Buyer Liu obtained the same loan letter, he went to the seller Xiao on March 11 and March 15 to go through the transfer procedures, and the 15-day period stipulated in the contract was not exceeded. Therefore, Buyer Liu's conduct did not constitute a breach of contract, and Seller Xiao's claim that Buyer Liu had the right to terminate the contract in breach of contract lacked grounds and was not supported by this court. On the contrary, after obtaining the same loan letter, Buyer Liu had actively fulfilled his contractual obligations and had made two appointments for the transfer of ownership, and the Seller Xiao believed that Buyer Liu should bear the liability for breach of contract before going through the transfer procedures, which had no basis in law and was not accepted by this court. On March 19, 2021, Buyer Liu had sent a letter to Seller Xiao requesting the performance of the contract, and Seller Xiao had not performed the contract, so Seller Xiao had clearly stated that he would no longer perform the contract due to the above-mentioned acts, and should be deemed to be in breach of contract by Seller Xiao and should bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract. The court supports the court's claim that the seller should return the deposit, pay liquidated damages, and compensate the attorney's fees.