On June 2, 2007, public du real estate bought a house in this city Nankai district, and has some real estate companies and developers of the mercenary contract in Tianjin. Contract, entrance door “luxury wooden son mother door, with top-grade lock, spy”. When the actual delivery, du entrance door found inconsistent with the contract. On August 30, 2008, plaintiff and defendant on housing estates to be a handover acceptance. On December 15, 2010, du developers citing breach of contract suit to court, seeks compensation for $ 3,000.
Trial, the defendant real estate company argued, the plaintiff upon receipt of notice of arrival, on the same day to do the check and complete the examination room, turn-key procedure. During this period the accused are in strict accordance with the two sides agreed to meet contractual rights and obligations. Plaintiffs say their entrance door material delivered does not comply with contractual, because fire stations require replacement advanced fire doors, through its company fire control acceptance, not to change. Moreover, both sides agreed, the company reserves the right to adjust individual product brands in the same grade brand, and the fire door prices not lower than the promised son mother door. Therefore, there is no breach of the company. At the same time, law of limitation of two years, the plaintiff sued for more than two years. Summing up the above, request dismissing plaintiffs appeal.
Identified by the trial of another of the Court, since the plaintiffs on August 30, 2008 signed the housing during the proceedings until December 15, 2010, the plaintiff without evidence that the limitation of reason. Combination of facts had been identified, the Court found that the original, signed by the defendant of the Tianjin sale contract of the real intention of the parties, in conformity with the law, recognized by law. Contract, the original to entrance door decoration standards, the accused has been expressly agreed upon. On August 30, 2008, the plaintiff received House knowing that the accused was not installed as required by contract, and contracts that do not meet the entrance door is installed, but is not within the statutory limitation of claim of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not limitation evidence of disruption, so the defendant to the plaintiff’s claim is more than justification of limitation of action, the Court is adopting. From here, the Court making the judgment.
