>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Randolph Guthrie v. Giant Star Property Inc. (Dispute over Elimination of Obstruction and Compensation for Losses)
顾然地诉巨星物业排除妨碍、赔偿损失纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 07-25-2003
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 6,2003

Randolph Guthrie v. Giant Star Property Inc. (Dispute over Elimination of Obstruction and Compensation for Losses)
(Dispute over Elimination of Obstruction and Compensation for Losses)
顾然地诉巨星物业排除妨碍、赔偿损失纠纷案

Randolph Guthrie v. Giant Star Property Inc.
(Dispute over Elimination of Obstruction and Compensation for Losses)

 

顾然地诉巨星物业排除妨碍、赔偿损失纠纷案

BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Randolph Hobson Guthrie III, male, borne on January 29, 1967, of the US nationality, dwelling at Suite 29E, Building No. 4, Sanhe Garden, Lane 123, Yanping Road, Shanghai. 原告:顾然地(RANDOLPH HOBSON GUTHRIE III),男,1967年1月29日出生,美国国籍,现住上海市延平路123弄三和花园4号楼29E室。
Defendant: Giant Star Property Inc., domiciled at No. 1, Lane 118, Maoming North Road, Shanghai. 被告:上海巨星物业有限公司,住所地:上海市茂名北路118弄1号。
Legal Representative: Qiu Yunluo, general manager of the Company. 法定代表人:裘云洛,该公司总经理。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Randolph Guthrie, the plaintiff, considered that Giant Star Property Inc. (hereinafter referred to as GS Inc.) prevented him from exercising his ownership, and brought a lawsuit with the People's Court of Jing'an District, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Jing'an District Court) for elimination of the obstruction and compensation for the losses. 原告顾然地认为被告上海巨星物业有限公司(以下简称巨星物业)妨碍其行使所有权,向上海市静安区人民法院提起排除妨碍、赔偿损失的诉讼。
Randolph claimed that: Suite 29E, Building No. 4, Sanhe Garden was an apartment he had bought, so he should have the right to install a bathtub in his own apartment. GS Inc.'s duty was merely to manage the real properties. However, it prevented him from installing the bathtub on the ground that the installation and use of the bathtub would impact the safety of the building. Even after Randolph promised that he would not use it at present, GS Inc. still did not consent to the installation, thus the bathtub was placed outdoors for long, and was seriously damaged. GS Inc.'s act had seriously infringed upon Randolph Guthrie's lawful rights and interests, and had caused mental and property losses to Randolph Guthrie. Randolph Guthrie pleaded with the court to order GS Inc. to eliminate the obstruction, to compensate 5,000 Yuan of mental losses and 7,600 Yuan of labor costs to Randolph, and to bear the litigation costs for the present case. 原告诉称:三和花园4号楼29E室是原告购买的房屋,原告有权在自己的房屋安放自己的浴缸。被告的职责仅是对物业进行管理,却以原告安装、使用这个浴缸会影响楼房安全为由,阻止原告安放浴缸,后在原告承诺目前并不使用的情况下,被告仍不同意安放,以至该浴缸被长期搁置在户外,损坏严重。被告的行为严重侵犯了原告的合法权益,给原告造成精神和财产损失。请求判令被告排除妨碍,给原告赔偿精神损失5000元、人工费损失7600元,并负担本案的诉讼费。
Randolph Guthrie submitted the following evidence to support his own litigation assertions: 原告顾然地为支持自己的诉讼主张,提交以下证据:
1. the contract for the sale of commodity house in Shanghai, which proves that Randolph Guthrie was the owner of Suite 29E, Building No. 4, Sanhe Garden, Lane 123, Yanping Road, Shanghai; 1.上海市商品房出售合同,以此证明顾然地是上海市延平路123弄三和花园4号楼29E室的业主;
2. Qin Yong's written testimony, which proves that Randolph Guthrie was prevented by GS Inc. when hanging the bathtub on December 13, 2001; 2.证人秦勇的书面证词,以此证明2001年12月13日顾然地吊装浴缸时遭到被告的阻止;
3. Gu Jinkuan's written testimony, which proves that Randolph Guthrie paid fees to the installation company after he was prevented from hanging the bathtub; 3.证人顾金宽的书面证词,以此证明在吊装浴缸被阻止后,顾然地向安装公司支付了费用;
4. the directions to the use of the bathtub in dispute and the translation thereof, which prove that the shape, size, weight and use of the bathtub will not harm the building body. 4.系争浴缸的说明书及翻译件,以此证明浴缸的形状、大小、重量以及使用该浴缸不会对楼体造成危害。
GS Inc. argued that: GS Inc. was entrusted by the owners' committee to manage the whole real properties of Building No. 4 of Sanhe Garden. The area and cubage of Randolph's bathtub were too large, and its weight could not be endured by the floor of the building when it was put into use, and it would endanger the safety of the building's structure, so GS Inc. prevented Randolph from hanging it. Randolph brought the lawsuit for twice in order to put that bathtub indoors, and his purpose was not merely to protect the bathtub. Randolph's commitment on not using the bathtub was not honest, and was unconvincing. The general use of a bathtub could only be for bathing. Once Randolph got the consent to place the bathtub indoors and used it, it would become a concealed trouble endangering safety, and thus impact other owners' normal use of the real properties. As a real property manager, GS Inc.'s stopping Randolph from installing that bathtub was an act of performing the management duty according to law, which did not injure Randolph's lawful right, hence GS Inc. did not agree to Randolph's litigation claims. 被告辩称:被告受业主委员会的委托,管理三和花园4号楼整个物业。原告的浴缸面积、体积过大,使用时的重量是该楼楼板无法承受的,会危及楼房结构的安全,被告因此才阻止原告吊装。原告为让这个浴缸进入室内,不惜两次提起诉讼,其目的绝不仅仅是保护浴缸。原告关于不使用该浴缸的承诺,缺乏诚信,难以令人信服。浴缸通常的用途,只能是洗澡。如果同意原告将浴缸放置在室内,其一旦使用,就会成为安全隐患,从而影响其他业主对物业的正常使用。作为物业管理者,被告制止原告安装该浴缸,是依法履行管理职责的行为,没有侵犯原告的合法权利,故不同意原告的诉讼请求。
GS Inc. submitted the following evidence to support its own assertions: 被告巨星物业为支持自己的主张,提交以下证据:
1. the owners' convention of Sanhe Garden in Jing'an District, Shanghai, which proves that Randolph Guthrie violated the convention, and GS Inc. followed the owners' convention to perform its management duties; 1.上海市静安区三和花园业主公约,以此证明顾然地违反了该公约,被告只是按业主公约履行管理职责;
2-3. eight photos on the bathtub in dispute and the ichnography of the bathroom of Suite 29E, Building No. 4, Sanhe Garden, which prove that the bathtub in dispute was unable to be installed in the bathroom of Suite 29E, Building No. 4 of Sanhe Garden; 2—3.系争浴缸的照片8幅以及三和花园4号楼29E室的浴室平面图,以此证明系争浴缸无法安装在三和花园4号楼29E的浴室内。
4. the convention concluded between Randolph Guthrie and Shanghai Hexin Real Property Management Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as Hexin Company), which proves that Randolph Guthrie promised to perform the owner's obligation pursuant to the laws, regulations and the convention, while Randolph Guthrie's installation of the bathtub violated the convention; 4.顾然地与上海和馨物业管理有限公司(以下简称和馨物业)签订的公共契约,以此证明顾然地承诺按照法律、法规及契约的规定履行业主义务,而顾然地安装浴缸的行为违反了这个约定;
5. four notifications for rectification as sent by Hexin Company to Randolph Guthrie, which prove that the former real property management company of Sanhe Garden ordered Randolph Guthrie in writing for several times to stop the rule-breaking decoration of the apartment and installation of the bathtub; 5.和馨物业发给顾然地的整改通知书4份,以此证明三和花园原物业管理公司因顾然地违规装修房屋及安装浴缸,曾数次书面限令其停止违章行为;
6. a letter of commitment concluded between GS Inc. and the owners' committee of Sanhe Garden on May 28, 2001, which proves that GS Inc. was a lawful manager of the real properties of Sanhe Garden, and had the right to stop the owners' rule-breaking act; 6.巨星物业与三和花园业主委员会于2001年5月28日签订的承诺书一份,以此证明巨星物业是三和花园物业的合法管理者,有权制止业主的违规行为;
7. four notifications sent by GS Inc. to Randolph Guthrie for rectification within a time limit, which prove that GS Inc. also ordered Randolph Guthrie in writing for several times to stop the rule-breaking act; 7.巨星物业发给顾然地的限期整改通知书4份,以此证明巨星物业也曾数次书面限令顾然地停止违章行为;
8. the letter wrote by some owners of Sanhe Garden with joint signatures to GS Inc., which proves that some owners considered Randolph Guthrie's act endangered the safety of the building and injured other owners' interests, and they required GS Inc. to obstruct Randolph Guthrie from doing that; 8.三和花园部分业主联名写给巨星物业的信件,以此证明部分业主认为顾然地的行为危害房屋的安全,侵犯了其他业主的利益,要求巨星物业予以阻止;
9-10. a statement issued by Sanhe Garden Residents' Committee and anther one issued by Caojiadu House Administration Office, which prove that GS Inc. prevented Randolph Guthrie from hanging the bathtub, and the facts that the Residents' Committee members, the policemen and the House Administration Office staff stopped Randolph Guthrie's act; 9—10.三和花园居委会和曹家渡房管办事处出具的情况说明各一份,以此证明巨星物业阻止顾然地吊装浴缸,以及居委会人员、民警和房管办人员对顾然地的行为进行制止的情况;
11. the letter sent by Randolph Guthrie's lawyer to GS Inc. and GS Inc.'s reply letter, which prove that GS Inc. did not consent to Randolph Guthrie's hanging the bathtub in consideration of the real property safety. 11.顾然地的律师发给巨星物业的信函以及巨星物业的回复件,以此证明巨星物业从物业安全的角度考虑不同意顾然地吊装浴缸。
Jing'an District Court presided over the cross-examination and certification of the evidence in the court hearing. GS Inc. had no objection to Evidence Items 1 and 2 submitted by Randolph Guthrie, but thought that the statement of the witness of Evidence Item 3 was untrue, that Evidence Item 4 was superficially authentic but unable to prove that the use of the bathtub would not endanger the building body. Randolph Guthrie had no objection to Evidence Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 submitted by GS Inc.; he held that Evidence Item 1, i.e. the owners' convention, had no binding force upon him because he was not clear about how it was concluded, and the convention neither bore the date nor was registered; he also held that the letter of commitment of Evidence Item 6 was not a real property management contract, and could not prove GS Inc.'s qualification to manage the residential area, because only the registered and archived real property management contract could prove the relationship between the owners' committee and the real property management company; he was not clear about the process of forming Evidence Items 8 through 10 or the contents to be proved, and did not provide corresponding opinions in cross-examination of the evidence. After cross-examination of the evidence, the court confirmed the evidence items undisputed between both parties; and held that since Randolph Guthrie did not make any reasonable explanation on GS Inc.'s opinion in cross-examination of the evidence regarding Randolph Guthrie's Evidence Item 3, nor did he submit other evidence to corroborate his own actual losses, the probative force of that evidence should not be certified; the authenticity of Randolph Guthrie's Evidence Item 4 should be confirmed, and whether the use of the bathtub would endanger the building body should be determined in combination with other evidence; GS Inc.'s Evidence Items 1 and 6 were found true from verification, and should be certified; although at the time of cross-examination of the evidence, Randolph Guthrie did not think that the owners' committee followed the prescribed procedures and the owners' convention had binding force before it was archived, he failed to submit evidence to support that assertion, hence the assertion should not be adopted. GS Inc.'s Evidence Items 8 through 10 could not directly prove the source of its right to stop Randolph Guthrie from hanging the bathtub, nor were they directly connected with the present case, hence they should not be certified. 上海市静安区人民法院主持了庭审质证、认证。被告巨星物业对原告顾然地提交的证据1、2无异议,认为证据3的证人所述不实,证据4存在表面真实性,但该证据无法证明使用浴缸不会危害楼体。顾然地对巨星物业提交的证据2、3、4、5、7、11无异议;认为不清楚证据1的业主公约是如何签订的,该公约既无日期也无登记,对本人没有约束力;证据6的承诺书不是物业管理合同,不能证明巨星物业有管理小区的资格,只有经登记备案的物业管理合同才能证明业主委员会与物业公司之间的关系;不清楚证据8、9、10形成的过程以及要证明的内容,不发表质证意见。法庭经质证,对双方当事人无争议的证据予以确认;认为巨星物业对顾然地的证据3提出的质证意见,顾然地没有作出合理解释,且不能提交其他证据印证自己的实际损失,故该证据的证明力不予认证;顾然地的证据4,其真实性应予确认,并应当结合其他证据认定使用浴缸是否危害楼体;巨星物业的证据1、6,经核查属实,应予认证;顾然地质证时,虽然认为业主委员会未按规定程序操作,业主公约未经备案对其不具有约束力,但没有提交能支持自己这个主张的证据,故对这个主张不予采纳。巨星物业的证据8、9、10,不能直接证明该物业制止顾然地吊装浴缸的权利来源,与本案没有直接关系,故不予认证。
...... 基于上述证据,上海市静安区人民法院认定本案事实如下:
 1997年1月,海南古斯利微电子技术有限公司(以下简称古斯利公司)购买了三和花园4号楼29E室复式房屋一套。同年10月,原告顾然地以古斯利公司员工的身份办理了入住手续,并与三和花园的原物业管理人和馨物业签订了《公共契约》。1998年10月,顾然地购买了一只长宽高为4.267米×2.286米×1.219米、上口面积9.754平方米、占地面积8.826平方米,自重362.8公斤,可容水4160.5公斤的浴缸,欲安装在29E室的跃层。和馨物业阻止顾然地安装该浴缸,并针对其在装修中的违规行为数次向其送达了整改通知。2000年4月,三和花园业主委员会聘用被告巨星物业为三和花园的管理人。顾然地又就浴缸安装问题多次与巨星物业交涉,巨星物业均以安装该浴缸需通过安全测定为由不予准许。同年9月,顾然地再次吊装大浴缸,被巨星物业制止。10月,古斯利公司向法院提起诉讼,请求排除巨星物业对顾然地安装浴缸的妨碍,并判令巨星物业赔偿损失。2001年4月,因古斯利公司撤诉,此案了结。嗣后,巨星物业四次致函顾然地,告知其停止装修中的违规行为,在安装浴缸的安全问题没有确认以前不得吊装浴缸,并要求其将放置在小区道路旁的浴缸搬离。同年12月10日,顾然地出资购买了三和花园4号楼29E室,遂以该房屋业主的身份提起本案诉讼。
 另查明,三和花园4号楼29E室内有三个浴室,使用面积分别为3.5平方米、10.39平方米、4.6平方米。2001年5月26日,在被告巨星物业对三和花园进行管理一年后,三和花园业主委员会与巨星物业签订了约定承诺书,约定至2001年7月31日,三和花园仍由巨星物业进行管理。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese