1、 Case Introduction

The plaintiff Huang Xiaoping's husband, who is the chairman of the company, obtained the right to lease the disputed property in Hongkou District and rented it out to the defendant Gong Meili's husband, the general manager of Company A, free of charge. The defendant forged a public rental housing certificate in Pudong New Area and signed a "Shanghai Public Housing Price Difference Exchange Contract" to exchange the disputed property to the defendant's name. After verification, it was found that there was no public housing in Pudong New Area. Due to the defendant's fault, the plaintiff suffered losses in interests, and therefore filed a lawsuit with the Hongkou District People's Court, requesting that the price difference exchange contract be invalidated.

The defendant, Li Xiaohua Law Firm in Shanghai, is a law firm recommended by the US Consulate to provide legal services. It is a team consisting of senior lawyers, law professors, law doctors, law masters, and National People's Congress deputies. The law firm team has handled many litigation cases with significant impact in Shanghai and even the whole country accepted by the Supreme People's Court and various higher people's courts, and has hired senior lawyers as agents.

2、 The court is in session for trial, and the defendant's lawyer presents a representative viewpoint

The court formed a collegial panel to hold a trial, and the panel cross examined evidence such as pre-sale contracts for commercial housing, rental certificates for public housing, price difference exchange contracts, invention patent certificates, patent implementation license contracts, investigation records, etc.

According to Article 143 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, civil legal acts that meet the following conditions are valid: (1) the actor has the corresponding capacity for civil conduct; （2） The meaning expressed is true; （3） Not violating mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and not violating public order and good customs.
The defendant's lawyer believes that:

1. The defendant obtained the right to lease the leased property based on the fact that the defendant's husband was a co owner of the patent technology rights. The use of this technology created huge benefits for Company A, and the company did not pay the patent usage fees. The plaintiff's husband used and transferred it to the defendant free of charge;

2. Due to policy reasons at the time, public housing could not be transferred, and both parties transferred the disputed property to the defendant in the form of a price difference exchange. Both parties were aware of this and there was no fraud involved;

3. The plaintiff has the capacity for civil conduct, and both parties personally handle the procedures for the exchange of houses and sign them. The statute of limitations for litigation has expired. The court should dismiss the original lawsuit request.

3、 The court adopts the defendant's lawyer's opinion and rejects the plaintiff's lawsuit request

The court believes that firstly, this case is a sales dispute manifested in the form of signing a price difference exchange contract. The false transaction behavior of both parties, although contrary to relevant policies, does not violate the mandatory provisions of the law and does not constitute the invalidity of the contract. Secondly, the plaintiff has the capacity for civil conduct and admitted the fact of signing a price difference housing exchange contract when filing the lawsuit. The disputed property is a complete set of exclusive public housing that cannot be transferred due to policy reasons. Both parties signed a virtual exchange agreement in the form of price difference housing exchange, and transferred the disputed property to the defendant. This is a true expression of intention by both parties, and it can be determined that the plaintiff knew and understood the fact of signing the price difference housing exchange contract.

The court ruled:

1、 The plaintiff Huang Xiaoping's claim to confirm the invalidity of the public housing price difference exchange contract signed with the defendant Gong Meili is not supported; ......

The acceptance fee for this case shall be borne by the plaintiff Huang Xiaoping.

(The characters in the article are all pseudonyms)