Brief facts of the case

Don Jr. graduated in June 2021. On June 25, Xiao Tang signed a "Housing Lease Contract" with a housing leasing company, agreeing that the rented house would be used for living for a period of 7 months, and that the rent, service fee, deposit, etc., and the payment method was one deposit and three payments. After the contract was signed, Xiao Tang paid the deposit, three-month rent and service fee to the housing leasing company in full, totaling 23,819.16 yuan, and the housing leasing company delivered the house to Xiao Tang on the same day.

When Don Jr. first checked in, he didn't smell the obvious pungent smell. However, after moving in, I gradually developed respiratory discomfort, and later I often had nosebleeds. Don Jr. wondered if the formaldehyde in the house was exceeding. So, on July 16, Xiao Tang spent 174 yuan to buy formaldehyde testing services through Taobao, and obtained the test results on July 20, showing that the formaldehyde concentration of the rented house was 0.16mg/m³. So Don Jr. contacted the housing rental company and asked for compensation. The housing leasing company requires Xiao Tang to submit an air test report issued by aninstitution with CMA air quality testing qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Lease Contract. So, on July 21, Xiao Tang spent 334 yuan to entrust an environmental monitoring company to conduct CMA testing on the indoor air quality of the rented house. On July 24, Xiao Tang obtained a test report, which showed that the concentration of formaldehyde content in the air in the bedroom of the rented house was 0.13mg/m³, which was higher than the limit specified in the national standard GB/T18883-2002 "Indoor Air Quality Standard" (≤ 0.10mg/m³).

On July 25, Don informed the housing rental company of the test results and demanded that the company immediately take over the house and refund all the rent, service fees, deposits and two testing fees paid. However, the housing leasing company proposed that the contract between the two parties stipulated that Xiao Tang should submit a written objection to the air quality of the house and apply for formaldehyde testing within 3 days from the date of signing the contract, and if the test report wassubmitted within 3 days and the test results exceeded the national standard, the rent could only be refunded for up to 10 days from the date of signing. As a result, the company only refunded Xiao Tang's entire deposit, rent and service fees totaling 17,033.49 yuan and the remaining water and electricity charges of 166.72 yuan after July 26, 2021, and did not agree to refund the rent, service fees and two inspection fees during the lease period.

After the incident, Xiao Tang filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting the court to order the housing rental company to return all the rent, deposits, service fees and two inspection fees paid.

Heard by the courts

After trial, the court held that the Housing Lease Contract signed by the two parties was legal and valid, Xiao Tang leased the house involved in the case for residential use, and the housing leasing company, as the lessor, had the obligation to ensure the safety and habitability of the rental house. According to the ascertained facts, the house involved in the case was tested by CMA, and the formaldehyde detection value was 0.13mg/m³, which was higher than the standard value of 0.10mg/m³. Xiao Tang proposed to the housing leasing company to terminate the contract on July 25, 2021, which was an exercise of unilateral termination rights, and the housing leasing company had refunded the remaining rent, deposit and service fee after receiving the notice of termination, so the Housing Lease Contract between the two parties was terminated on July 25, 2021.

The housing leasing company raised a defense on the grounds that Xiao Tang did not raise an objection to the air quality within three days of the date of signing the contract, as agreed in the contract. The court held that, on the one hand, the Housing Lease Contract is a filling-type reusable contract unilaterally drafted by the housing leasing company in advance, which meets the constitutive requirements of a standard contract; On the other hand, air quality problems can cause potential hidden dangers to the human body, and it is difficult for tenants to associate the physical discomfort caused by excessive formaldehyde standards with air quality problems in the short term. As a business entity specializing in housing leasing, the housing leasing company should ensure that the air quality of the housing involved in the case meets the living standards, and the tenant, out of trust in the housing leasing company, often only conducts air quality testing when the body has obvious symptoms. Therefore, the Housing Leasing Company failed to provide evidence to prove that it had explained and reminded Tang to pay special attention to the above clauses in a reasonable manner during the signing of the Housing Lease Contract, and therefore, the clause did not become the content of the contract, but it did not affect the validity of other parts of the Housing Lease Contract. The court rejected the housing rental company's defense. It is not improper for Xiao Tang to ask the housing rental company to refund all the house rent, service fees and deposits that have been collected. Because Xiao Tang only submitted the invoice for the second test fee, the court did not support the first test fee and supported the second test fee. The court finally ruled that the housing leasing company should return a total of 7,119.67 yuan to Xiaotang's house rent, service fees, and formaldehyde testing fees.

After the judgment was pronounced, neither party appealed. The verdict is now in force.

What the judge said

This case is a dispute between an ordinary tenant and a professional housing leasing company due to excessive formaldehyde in the delivered house, which is of typical significance. During the trial of this case, there were two points of dispute: first, whether the lessor was in breach of contract if the formaldehyde of the delivered house exceeded the standard; Second, if the lessor sets the time limit for the lessee to raise an objection to air quality at 3 days in the housing lease contract, how should the lessee raise an objection within the time limit?

On the first point of controversy. Xiao Tang leased the house involved in the case for living, and the housing leasing company, as the lessor, had the obligation to ensure that the rental house was safe and habitable. In this case, the house involved in the case was tested by the CMA testing agency, and the formaldehyde content in the air of the house exceeded the national standard value, which will inevitably cause obvious damage or potential hidden dangers to the health of the occupants. Different from individual rental housing, housing leasing companies, as business entities specializing in housing leasing, should have a clear understanding of whether the housing is suitable for rent, and should clearly understand and strictly abide by the requirements of the relevant regulations related to housing air quality. At present, the house involved in the case has been tested to have air quality problems, does not have safe living conditions, and the purpose of the contract cannot be realized, and the housing leasing company constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. According to Article 577 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the housing leasing company shall be liable for breach of contract for the consequences of the termination of the contract caused by excessive formaldehyde.

On the second point of controversy. The Housing Lease Contract submitted by the housing leasing company is a pre-unilaterally drafted fill-filled and reusable contract, which meets the constitutive elements of standard clauses. As a business entity specializing in housing leasing, housing leasing companies have the obligation to ensure that the rental houses are safe and livable, and the houses they rent out shall meet the air quality standards stipulated by the state. However, whether the air quality is up to standard is not something that residents can perceive immediately, but needs professional equipment to detect, and in the case of low formaldehyde content, it is difficult for tenants to associate the physical discomfort caused by excessive formaldehyde, such as headache, insomnia, fatigue and other chronic poisoning, which is related to unqualified air quality in the short term. Therefore, the housing leasing company, as a professional housing leasing company, in the Housing Lease Contract provided, limits the time limit for ordinary tenants to raise objections to air quality within three days from the date of signing the contract, which is to reduce its own liability, and it should take a reasonable way to remind the tenant to pay attention to the clause and explain the clause according to the requirements of the other party. In this case, the housing leasing company failed to provide evidence that it had fulfilled its obligation to prompt or explain, resulting in Xiao Tang's failure to realize that it should apply for formaldehyde testing within three days from the date of signing the contract, and Xiao Tang could claim that this clause did not become the content of the contract.

This article is transferred from the WeChat public account of "Beijing Haidian Court", thank you here!