>>>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
 
Chen Shuhao v. Nanjing Wuning Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Qinghe Property Management Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over compensation for damaged properties)
陈书豪与南京武宁房地产开发有限公司、南京青和物业管理有限公司财产损害赔偿纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Chen Shuhao v. Nanjing Wuning Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Qinghe Property Management Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over compensation for damaged properties)
(case of dispute over compensation for damaged properties)
陈书豪与南京武宁房地产开发有限公司、南京青和物业管理有限公司财产损害赔偿纠纷案

Chen Shuhao v. Nanjing Wuning Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Qinghe Property Management Co., Ltd.
(Dispute over compensation for harm to property)@#
[Summary]@#
A property service enterprise has the obligation to maintain and repair the common parts of a residential area, and should eliminate in a timely manner any safety hazards in the common parts of the residential area which may cause harm to a homeowner's property. Otherwise, when a homeowner's property is harmed, the property service enterprise should assume liability for a breach of contract and compensate the homeowner for his loss. Even if the safety hazard is caused by a third party, the property service enterprise should not be exempted from liability for the breach of contract. Where the tortious conduct of a third party causes any common part of a residential area to harm a homeowner's property, the property service enterprise may be exempted from liability only if it has fulfilled its obligation of maintenance and repair and the tortious conduct of the third party is unforeseeable and unavoidable.@#
Where any property of a relatively large value is harmed, even if it is restored, compared with the original property, the restored property may decrease in not only its objective value but also its perceived value, known as the diminished value. Under the theory of liability for a breach of contract, the defaulting party should first restore the property to its original status, which definitely requires compensation for the diminished value of the property.@#
A real estate development enterprise as the seller of commercial properties has fulfilled its obligations to the homeowners of a residential area and should not assume liability, once the commercial properties are sold, the titles thereto are transferred, and the residential area is completed and enclosed, provided that the commercial properties sold and the common parts of the residential area are free of quality defects.@#
......

 

陈书豪与南京武宁房地产开发有限公司、南京青和物业管理有限公司财产损害赔偿纠纷案@#
[裁判摘要]@#
物业服务企业对小区共有部分负有保养、维护义务,对于可能对业主财产造成损害的小区共用部分的安全隐患,应当及时消除,否则致业主财产损害后,物业服务企业应承担违约责任,对业主的损失进行赔偿。即便该安全隐患是第三人造成,也不能免除物业服务企业的违约责任,因第三人侵权致小区共用部分对业主财产造成损害的,物业服务企业可以负责的情形是物业服务企业已履行了保养维护义务,而第三人侵权是不可预见、不可避免的。@#
价值较大的财物在受损后,虽经修复,但与原物相比,不仅在客观价值上可能降低,而且在人们心理上价值降低,这就是价值贬损,按照违约责任理论,承担违约责任的方式首先是恢复原状,而恢复原状肯定要求赔偿财物的价值贬损。@#
房地产开发企业作为商品房的出卖人,在出售房屋、转移房屋所有权,并且商品房小区已经封园后,在所售房屋及共用部分没有质量瑕疵的情形下,对于小区业主的义务已经履行完毕,不需要承担责任。@#
@#
原告:陈书豪。@#
被告:南京武宁房地产开发有限公司。@#
法定代表人:赵崇希,该公司董事长。@#
被告:南京青和物业管理有限公司。@#
法定代表人:符丽娟,该公司董事长。@#
原告陈书豪与被告南京武宁房地产开发有限公司(以下简称武宁公司)、南京青和物业管理有限公司(以下简称青和公司)发生财产损害赔偿纠纷,向南京市江宁区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告陈书豪诉称:2011年6月25日早晨,被告武宁公司开发的南京市江宁区武夷绿洲小区观竹苑的围墙倒塌,其停在由被告青和公司负责管理的小区正规车位上的车辆(苏A856S3)遭受严重损害。原告车辆所投保的保险公司经过实地查看后表示,围墙倒塌是由于围墙外的土堆长期受雨水浸泡挤压所致,属于人为因素,车主无责,在事故责任方明确并且可以被找到的情况下,根据相关保险条款拒绝赔偿。后经查,此围墙属武宁公司负责管理,倒塌的原因系管理不善造成。在了解情况后,武宁公司给出书面承诺,同意承担原告的修车费用和物价定损费用,但是对于原告车辆的折损费拒不赔偿。在这起事故中,青和公司没有尽到对车辆的管理责任,故也应承担责任。现依据其和武宁公司、青和公司的合同关系要求:1.两被告支付原告车辆修理费22 309元;2.两被告支付原告物价定损费720元;3.两被告支付原告车辆折损费 20 000元;4.两被告支付这起事故给原告造成的误工费、交通费1000元;5.两被告承担本案的诉讼费;6.两被告承担连带责任。@#
被告武宁公司辩称:原告陈书豪与武宁公司之间存在商品房买卖合同关系,武宁公司已经按照商品房买卖合同的约定向原告交付了经竣工验收合格的房屋及相关附属设施,不存在违约行为。围墙倒塌属于围墙之外他人土地上堆放的土堆因遭遇大暴雨倒塌而冲毁围墙,并非该围墙本身质量原因而倒塌,即武宁公司不存在任何违约行为,不承担责任。@#
被告青和公司辩称:其和原告陈书豪之间仅有一份停车服务协议,按该协议约定,其公司仅为陈书豪提供车辆管理服务所产生的秩序维护、卫生、环境保洁、停车服务,小区的楼盘、公共设施的产权均不属于其公司所有,故要其公司赔偿没有法律依据。@#
南京市江宁区人民法院一审查明:@#
原告陈书豪购买了被告武宁公司开发的位于南京市江宁区天元中路武夷绿洲小区观竹苑24幢906室房屋,并于2009年 7月取得房屋的所有权证,现观竹苑已封园。武宁公司于2009年7月27日和被告青和公司签订了一份武夷绿洲前期物业服务合同,约定青和公司对武夷绿洲小区提供前期物业管理服务。双方还约定,青和公司对武夷绿洲小区物业共用部位进行维修养护。2010年12月,青和公司与陈书豪签订了一份停车服务协议,约定将小区地面 105号车位交由陈书豪停车。2011年6月 24日、25日本区大雨,同年6月25日上午,陈书豪停车位旁围墙外堆放的泥土坍塌,致围墙倒塌,压坏了陈书豪的苏 A856S3车辆。陈书豪的车辆被压坏后,产生维修费用20 654元、定损费720元。 2011年11月,陈书豪诉至法院。法院在审理过程中,经陈书豪申请,法院委托南京市鼓楼区物价局价格认证中心对车辆苏 A856S3的折损情况进行鉴定评估,经鉴定,该车在2011年6月25日的贬值损失鉴证价格为9770元。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥500.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
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。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@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