专业团队

案情：

由于陈先生与刘女士的房屋买卖合同被法院确认无效，陈先生需要支付更高的价格另行购置房屋，为此，陈先生将房屋出卖人刘女士及其配偶魏先生，中介方房地产经纪公司告上法庭，要求三方共同赔偿其房屋价值损失30万元。近日，湖南省东安县人民法院开庭审理了这起案件。

陈先生诉称，2008年经房地产经纪公司提供中介，他与刘女士签订了房屋买卖合同，约定以40万元的价格购买刘女士名下的一处房屋。合同签订后，他向刘女士给付了首付款12万元并向房地产经纪公司给付了中介费5000元，刘女士也如约交付了房屋。然而时过不久，刘女士的配偶魏先生却以刘女士未经允许私自处分夫妻共有财产为由诉至法院，要求确认双方签订的房屋买卖合同无效。法院支持了魏先生的诉讼请求，并要求刘女士及房地产经纪公司将购房款、居间服务费等费用返还给了陈先生。但是，陈先生如另行购置同样的房屋，则需要支付高于原房价30万元的房价款，故陈先生提起诉讼，要求刘女士、魏先生、房地产经纪公司赔偿其房屋差价损失300万元。

在庭审过程中，刘女士表示并不知道出卖房屋还需取得丈夫的同意，且陈先生及房地产经纪公司也都没有就此进行过询问，因此自己不存在过错；而且房屋买卖合同里面约定了违约责任是总价款的10%，所以她不同意给付陈先生30万元的差价补偿款。魏先生表示对妻子卖房毫不知情，陈先生不应该向自己主张赔偿款。房地产经纪公司则认为作为中介公司，已经履行了全部合同义务，现在房屋买卖合同无效是刘女士隐瞒事实所致，因此也不应承担责任。

法院认为：

依据已生效判决书，陈先生与刘女士在签订《房屋买卖合同》时对合同附件三房屋共有人情况一页的存在及所载内容，即核实是否存在共有人及共有人表示同意出售房屋的意思表示的规则是明知的，但双方均未按常理进行填写，故均存在主观过错。刘女士作为共有人魏先生的配偶，最有能力了解、掌控魏先生是否同意出售涉案房产的真实态度，最容易避免因魏先生拒绝出　售涉案房屋导致合同无效后果的发生，且其作为出卖方，在买卖关系上占主动地位，故其对买卖关系被认定为无效的后果所应承担的责任应为最大。房地产经纪公司作为提供居间服务的专业机构，其应较普通人熟悉法律、法规的规定，但其忽视对魏先生相关意思表示的审核，且未能对买卖双方，尤其是买方的风险予以提示，因此其对于买卖关系被认定为无效的后果所应承担的责任应较陈先生重。陈先生作为买受人，未认真审核刘女士房屋共有人的情况，主观上亦存在一定过错。

综合上述因素，法院确认刘女士按50%的比例承担过错责任，房地产经纪公司按30%的比例承担过错责任，陈先生按20%的比例承担过错责任。最终法院依据评估结论判决刘女士赔偿陈先生房屋差价损失15万元，房地产经纪公司赔偿陈先生房屋差价损失15万元，并驳回了陈先生的其他诉讼请求。

相关法律知识：

房屋买卖合同作为一种特殊的买卖合同，它是指出卖人将房屋交付并转移所有权与买受人，买受人支付价款的合同。房屋买卖合同的法律特征既有买卖合同的一般特征，也有其自身固有的特征。这主要表现为：（1）出卖人将所出卖的房屋所有权转移给买受人，买受人支付相应的价款；（2）房屋买卖合同是诺成、双务、有偿合同；（3）房屋买卖合同的标的物为不动产，其所有权转移必须办理登记手续；（4）房屋买卖合同属于法律规定的要式法律行为。  

CASE:

Due to the invalidity of the house purchase and sale contract between Mr. Chen and Ms. Liu being confirmed by the court, Mr. Chen needs to pay a higher price to purchase a new house. Therefore, Mr. Chen sued Ms. Liu, her spouse Mr. Wei, and the intermediary real estate brokerage company in court, demanding that the three parties jointly compensate for the loss of the house value of 300000 yuan. Recently, the People's Court of Dong'an County, Hunan Province held a court hearing to hear this case.

Mr. Chen filed a lawsuit stating that in 2008, he signed a house purchase and sale contract with Ms. Liu through a real estate brokerage company, agreeing to purchase a house under Ms. Liu's name for 400000 yuan. After the contract was signed, he made a down payment of 120000 yuan to Ms. Liu and paid an intermediary fee of 5000 yuan to the real estate brokerage company. Ms. Liu also delivered the house as agreed. However, shortly after, Ms. Liu's spouse, Mr. Wei, sued the court on the grounds that Ms. Liu had disposed of the jointly owned property without permission, demanding confirmation that the house purchase and sale contract signed by both parties was invalid. The court supported Mr. Wei's lawsuit request and demanded that Ms. Liu and the real estate brokerage company return the purchase price, intermediary service fees, and other expenses to Mr. Chen. However, if Mr. Chen purchases the same house separately, he will need to pay a house price higher than the original price of 300000 yuan. Therefore, Mr. Chen filed a lawsuit and demanded that Ms. Liu, Mr. Wei, and the real estate brokerage company compensate him for the loss of 3 million yuan due to the price difference of the house.

During the trial, Ms. Liu stated that she did not know that selling the house required her husband's consent, and neither Mr. Chen nor the real estate brokerage company had inquired about it, so she did not have any fault; Moreover, the property purchase and sale contract stipulates that the liability for breach of contract is 10% of the total price, so she does not agree to pay Mr. Chen a compensation of 300000 yuan for the price difference. Mr. Wei stated that he had no knowledge of his wife's sale of the house, and Mr. Chen should not claim compensation from him. The real estate brokerage company believes that as an intermediary company, it has fulfilled all contractual obligations. The invalidity of the housing sales contract is due to Ms. Liu's concealment of facts, and therefore should not be held responsible.

The court held that:

According to the effective judgment, Mr. Chen and Ms. Liu were aware of the existence and content of Annex 3 of the "House Sale and Purchase Contract" when signing the "House Sale and Purchase Contract", which is to verify the existence of co owners and the rules for expressing their consent to sell the house. However, both parties did not fill in the information according to common sense, so both parties had subjective errors. Ms. Liu, as the spouse of Mr. Wei, the co owner, has the best ability to understand and control whether Mr. Wei agrees to sell the property in question, and is most likely to avoid the consequences of contract invalidity caused by Mr. Wei's refusal to sell the property. As the seller, Ms. Liu holds an active position in the buying and selling relationship, so she should bear the greatest responsibility for the consequences of the buying and selling relationship being deemed invalid. As a professional institution providing intermediary services, real estate brokerage companies should be more familiar with the provisions of laws and regulations than ordinary people. However, they ignore the review of Mr. Wei's relevant expressions of intention and fail to remind both buyers and sellers, especially the buyer, of the risks. Therefore, their responsibility for the consequences of the invalidity of the buying and selling relationship should be heavier than that of Mr. Chen. Mr. Chen, as the buyer, did not carefully review the situation of the co owners of Ms. Liu's house, and there is also some subjective fault.

Taking into account the above factors, the court has confirmed that Ms. Liu will bear 50% of the fault liability, the real estate brokerage company will bear 30% of the fault liability, and Mr. Chen will bear 20% of the fault liability. The final court ruled, based on the evaluation conclusion, that Ms. Liu should compensate Mr. Chen for the loss of house price difference of 150000 yuan, and the real estate brokerage company should compensate Mr. Chen for the loss of house price difference of 150000 yuan, and rejected Mr. Chen's other litigation requests.

Related legal knowledge:

The house sales contract, as a special type of sales contract, refers to the contract in which the seller delivers the house and transfers ownership to the buyer, and the buyer pays the price. The legal characteristics of a housing sales contract include both the general characteristics of a sales contract and its inherent characteristics. This is mainly manifested as: (1) the seller transfers the ownership of the sold property to the buyer, and the buyer pays the corresponding price; (2) A house purchase and sale contract is a promise, dual obligation, and paid contract; (3) The subject matter of a house purchase and sale contract is immovable property, and the transfer of ownership must go through registration procedures; (4) The house purchase and sale contract is a formal legal act stipulated by law.