Basic Case

    On April 8, 2008, an advertising company signed a "Commercial Housing Sales Contract" with a real estate company, stipulating that an advertising company would purchase a set of real estate located in a business center. On January 11, 2021, a real estate company signed a "Property Entrustment Contract" with the plaintiff's property company, stipulating that a real estate company entrusted a business center to the plaintiff's property company to implement property management. Since the plaintiff implemented property management, it has provided property management services for the owner, but an advertising company has never paid property management fees. As of May 1, 2024, the plaintiff still owed 7118.24 yuan in property fees and 448.17 yuan in interest. After investigation, an advertising company was a sole proprietorship and was cancelled on January 16, 2019. The investor before the cancellation was the defendant Huang. In order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff sued Huang to the Liberated Area Court.

Court Hearing

    The court held that this case was a dispute over a property service contract. According to Article 939 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the previous property service contract concluded between the construction unit and the property service person according to law, as well as the property service contract concluded between the owners' committee and the property service person legally selected by the owners' assembly, is legally binding on the owner. The "Property Entrustment Contract" signed between the plaintiff and a real estate company on January 11, 2021 is binding on both the original and the defendant. The house involved in the case was purchased by an advertising company from a real estate company. As the owner and user of the real estate, an advertising company enjoyed property services according to law and should pay the corresponding property fees. Because an advertising company was a sole proprietorship enterprise, it was cancelled on January 16, 2019, and the investor before the cancellation was the defendant Huang. The property fees involved in the case were expenses incurred after January 11, 2021, which were essentially expenses incurred during the storage and use of the property of an advertising company. As an investor in the sole proprietorship enterprise of a natural person, Huang, after the cancellation of the sole proprietorship enterprise, should be obligated to pay the debt involved in the case according to law. The court ordered the defendant Huang to pay the property service fee of the plaintiff's property company from January 11, 2021 to November 30, 2024 of 8,369.3 yuan.

Judge's Statement

    According to Article 944 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the owner shall pay the property fee to the property service provider as agreed. As we all know, property services are public. The content of property services includes building maintenance, maintenance of public facilities and equipment, cleaning, security, greening maintenance, etc. The content of property services is mainly not for individual owners. The law stipulates that if the property service provider has provided services in accordance with the agreement and relevant regulations, the owner shall not refuse to pay the property fee on the grounds that he has not accepted or does not need to accept the relevant property services. Although the house involved in the case is temporarily vacant, it objectively still enjoys the property services such as maintenance, hygiene and cleaning, and security inspection of the common part of the building, and shall pay the property fee in accordance with the law.

    This article is transferred from the "Shandong High Law" WeChat official account, thank you here!