论商品房预售合同的效力

On the Effectiveness of Advance Sale Contract for Commercial Houses

未取得预售许可而签订的预售合同效力,涉及《城市房地产管理法》和《城市商品房预售管理办法》关于商品房预售许可证制度的违反及其对关联合同效力的影响问题。就此,需要首先将《合同法》第52条第5项的一般规定与规定许可证要求的具体强制规定结合起来进行思考。在利益考量方面,虽然《城市商品房预售管理办法》第6条第2款保护的利益通常是确保建筑完成以及购买者利益,但这种利益与当事人合同利益相比,并不具有显著优势,且《城市商品房预售管理办法》等规定的制裁措施也足以实现《城市商品房预售管理办法》第6条第2款的规范目的;相反,无效的后果安排反倒与具体规范的目的相违背。因此,对《城市商品房预售管理办法》第6条第2款的违反,并不充分《合同法》第52条第5项一般规定的立法目的,无预售许可而签订的预售合同应当认定有效。《最高人民法院关于审理商品房买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第2条规定的结论,尽管做了一定的缓和,但仍不符合所解释对象的立法目的。

When the parties conclude an advance sale contract for commercial house without an administrative license for the sale,it concerns with the issue of whether the violation against the license system for the advance sale of commercial house,which is regulated respectively by The Urban Real Estate Administration Law of the People's Republic of China(UREAL) and The Measures for the Management of Advance Sale of Urban Commercial Houses(MMAS),has any effect upon the sale contract concerned.To answer this question,the logic in the construction of legal norms should combine the general clause of ius cogens in Art.52(5) of Chinese Contract Law(1999) with the concrete mandatory regulation rules which require the qualified license.Considering in perspective of interests balancing,albeit the goal of Art.6(2) of MMAS is to protect the interest of buyer and secure the completion of the building,this interest cannot be compared to the interests between contractual parties,that is to say the former is anterior to the latter.On the other hand,to give the violence a void effect will even not conform to the ratio legis of MMAS.Therefore,the violation against Art.6(2) of MMAS does not suffice the ratio legis of Art.52(5) of Chinese Contract Law,and the contract concluded without the administrative license should be treated as effective.That the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Relevant Issues concerning the Application of Law for Trying Cases on Dispute over Contract for the Sale of Commodity Houses(2003) stipulates in its Art.2 the contract as void,does not conform to the ratio legis of the object of interpretation,i.e.of UREAL and MMAS,although it mitigates somehow its sharp effect.