An Analysis Of Housing Lease Contract Dispute Between Mr. Li And Mrs. He

Tenant preemption system is an important civil legal system. Clarifying the application of pre-emptive rights and the issue of compensation has great practical significance to balance the interests between the lesser, the lessee and the third person. Three core focus of the case of rental contract dispute between Mr. Li and Mrs. He lie in whether the case belongs to the "non bis in idem" category, whether Mr. Li can ask for compensation on account that Mrs. He infringed the right of first refusal, and how to count the compensation for the right of first refusal. First of all, whether the case belongs to the "non bis in idem" category. Before the previous complaints, Mr. Li didn’t even mention to demand the compensation to Mrs. He for his pre-emptive rights have been violated, so these two complaints are based on two different claims and causes of action, which does not constitute a repeat action, so it does not belong to "the issue of second instance", and Yuelu district court should hear the case. Secondly, whether Mr. Li can ask for compensation on account that Mrs. He infringed the right of first refusal. From the nature of pre-emptive rights, the right of first refusal belongs to the formation of right, which is a right of technical relief, and it does not necessarily bring real benefits to the parties; From the purpose and significance of the system of pre-emptive rights, the right of first refusal was established to safeguard the interests of vulnerable groups, and protect legitimate tenants’stable production and living conditions. While the behavior that Mrs. He sold the shop did not affect the Mr. Li’s normal production and life to a large extent, so Mr. Li cannot get the compensation on the ground of that. Furthermore, how to count the compensation for the pre-emptive rights. The compensation range of damaging the pre-emptive rights typically includes actual damages and incidental damages. On one hand, Mr. Li didn’t express to buy the shop clearly after he was aware of Mrs. He would sell it, and it seems that the possibility of purchasing the shop was low under the "equal" conditions, so the failure of achieving the right of first refusal had a little impact on Mr. Li. On the other hand, the 100 thousand compensation that Mrs. He paid could be taken as the corresponding responsibility for damaging Mr. Li’s right of first refusal, so Li proposed 2.8 million compensation should not be supported.