No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Law and Tradition in a Socialist Market Economy: Haunted House Litigation in China
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2015
Abstract
The transition of the People’s Republic of China into a market economy and the ensuing development of its real estate market have seen the rise of a new type of case, related to the sale of “second hand properties” (er shou fang) (二手房,): the “disputes in transactions for haunted houses” (xiong zhai maimai jiufen) (凶宅买卖纠纷). Can the plaintiff’s rights, which are not regulated by express provisions of statutory law but are rooted in traditional beliefs, be claimed in the courts of a socialist country? What are the legal grounds of these claims, if any? My aim is to highlight, through the analysis of several cases decided by the People’s Courts since 2004, the complex relationship between tradition, law, and economy in a country that provides one of the greatest examples of “legal transplants” in the history of mankind.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © National University of Singapore, 2015
Footnotes
*
PhD (University of Milan). Currently Researcher and Assistant Professor of Chinese Law, Department of Law, University of Turin, Italy. A previous version of this paper has been presented at the Young Scholars Workshop: “Asian Legal Studies - New Issues and New Scholarship (University of Singapore, 5–7 December 2013) and at the ECLS 2013 Conference (University of Oxford, 19–20 September 2013). I wish to thank Andrew Harding (National University of Singapore), Wang Jiangyu (National University of Singapore), Sundram Soosay (National University of Singapore), Björn Ahl (University of Cologne, Institute of East Asian Studies), Jacques deLisle (University of Pennsylvania Law School), and Benjamin Liebman (Columbia University Law School) for their helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Raffaele Caterina and Michele Graziadei, who offered me invaluable advice after reading and discussing earlier drafts of this work.
References
1. MAO Zedong, “Chuangkang Xuanyan (创刊宣言) [Founding Manifesto]” Xiangjiang Pinglun (湘江评论) [Xiang River Commentaries] (14 July 1919) [translation by author].
2. ZEITLIN, Judith T., The Phantom Heroine: Ghosts and Gender in Seventeenth-Century Chinese Literature (Honululu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007) at 6Google Scholar.
3. WANG, David D., The Monster that is History: History, Violence, and Fictional Writing in Twentieth-Century China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004) at 266CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4. Ibid. at c. 8.
5. Zeitlin, , supra note 2 at 6Google Scholar.
6. ZHANG Zhou, Chaoye Qianzai (朝野佥载) [Draft Notes from Court and Country], juan 6, quoted in LIU Pan, “Guanyu “Xiongzhai” Jieding Ji Qi Hetong Jiufen de Shiyong (关于“凶宅”界定及其合同纠纷的适用) [The Definition of “Haunted House” and Its Use in Contract Litigation]” (2013) Huazhang (华章) [Brilliant Work] no. 1 at 20 [Liu, “Definition”] [translation by author].
7. Liu, “Definition”, supra note 6 at 20; GU Jiangbing and CAO Yanfei, “Zhu “Xiongzhai” Huo Buchang Siwan Yuan (住’凶宅’获补偿四万元) [They Live in a Haunted House, They Get a Compensation of 40,000 RMB]” Renmin Fayuan Bao (人民法院报) [Journal of the People’s Courts] (29 July 2011) no. 3 at 1; WU Tingting, ed., “Gouman Xiongzhai Yinfa De Guansi (购买’凶宅’引发的官司) [A Litigation Regarding the Purchase of a Haunted House] (2010) Gongmnin Daokan (公民导刊) [Citizen Herald] no. 4 at 37.
8. LÜ Lixiang, Xiongzhai Maimai Jiufen de Falü Jiuji (凶宅’买卖纠纷的法律救济) [Legal Solutions in Litigation for the Purchase of a “Haunted House”] (Shuoshixuewei lunwen (硕士学位论文) [Master’s thesis], Jinan Daxue (暨南大学) [University of Jinan], 3 June 2011) at 6–7.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Prices for these houses can deviate from the cost of a “normal” house by up to 20 or 30 percent and vary depending on the circumstances of the event that took place in the house. See Te-Ping CHEN and Jeffrey NG, “Hong Kong’s Real Estate Boom Conjures a Scary Development” Wall Street Journal (14 January 2013), online: Wall Street Journal <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324669104578208181761763650.html> (interviewing NG Goon Lau, known as the “haunted house Lord”). On the subject of haunted houses in Hong Kong see Diego LAJE, “How Secretive Database Control Hong Kong’s Haunted House Market” CNN (22 April 2013), online: CNN <http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/21/business/hong-kong-haunted/index.html?hpt=hp_c4>.
12. See, for example, “Squarefoot Haunted House Database”, online: squarefoot <http://www.squarefoot.com.hk/haunted/>, or the Chinese fee-based database “hk.compass”, online: hk.compass <http://hk-compass.com/>.
13. DENG Dahong, “Nanjing “Xiongzhai Dang’an” Chudong Shehui Shenjing (南京’凶宅档案’触动社会神经) [Nanjing “Haunted Houses” Database Hits Society’s Raw Nerve]” Zhongguo Shangbao (中国商报) [China Business Herald] (14 Nov. 2006) no. 2 at 1–4.
14. CATERINA, Raffaele, Storie di Locazioni e di Fantasmi [Stories of Rents and Ghosts] (Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino Editore, 2011) at 8Google Scholar.
15. Ibid. at 53.
16. Reed v. King, 145 Cal App 3d 261 (1983) [Reed v. King].
17. Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 NYS 2d 672 (NY App. Div. 1991) [Stambovsky v. Ackley].
18. Reed v. King, supra note 16 at [2c] (ruling for the plaintiff/appellant, who had purchased a house in which a mother and four children were murdered ten years earlier.).
19. Ibid. at [2c].
20. South Dakota Codified Laws, tit. 43, c. 4, para. 43-4-44 (requiring the seller of a property to disclose whether he knows of any suicide, murder, or other serious crime having taken place in the property in the past twelve months). On the subject see more in detail CATERINA, Raffaele, supra note 14 at 79–87Google Scholar.
21. New York Real Property Law, para. 443-a (expressly granting the buyer the right to request in writing information about any such occurrence); General Statutes of Connecticut, tit. 20, c. 392, s. 20–329 dd(b) (requiring the seller to reveal any information regarding any murder, serious crime, or suicide that has taken place inside the property if the buyer has declared in writing that such information is important in her reaching a decision regarding the purchase).
22. CATERINA, Raffaele, supra note 14 at 86Google Scholar.
23. Deng, , supra note 13 at 2Google Scholar.
24. LIU E, “Lun “Xiongzhai” Jiufen Chuli de Falü Shiyong (论’凶宅’纠纷处理的法律适用) [On the Use of the Law in “Haunted House” Litigation]” (2009) 23:6 Changsha Daxue Xuebao (长沙大学学报) [Journal of Changsha University] 45 [Liu, “On the Use of the Law”].
25. See amongst others:, Yaodong, CHEN and Jin, ZHANG, “‘Xiongzhai’ de Falü Xianding Ji Qi Jiaoyi Jiufen de Falü Shiyong” (‘凶宅’的法律限定及其交易纠纷的法律适用) [Legal Limitations of Xiongzhai and the Implementation of the Law to Litigation Concerning Their Transfer]” (2007) 25:10Google Scholar Hebei Faxue (河北法学) [Hebei University Law Review] 91; Wu, , ed., supra note 6 at 37Google Scholar.
26. YU Houzhi, Lun “Xiongzhai” Jiaoyi Jiufen de Falü Shiyong (论凶宅交易纠纷的法律适用) [The Use of the Law in Disputes over Transaction for Haunted Houses”] (Shuoshi xuewei lunwen (硕士学位论文) [Master’s thesis], Xinan Zhengfa Daxue (西南政法大学) [Xinan University of Political Science and Law], 17 March 2010) at 12.
27. The information about this case have been derived from “Xiongzhai Maimai Yinfa de Guansi (凶宅买卖引发的官司) [A Lawsuit Initiated Because of a Haunted House]” Sina (14 May 2009), online: Sina <http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2009-05-14/172117815349.shtml>. The same case is also described in “Guke Yi Maidao “Xiongzhai” Yintui Fang Zhi Zheng (顾客疑买到“凶宅”引退房之争) [A Dispute Regarding the Return of a Purchased Property, Suspected to be a Xiongzhai], voc.com.cn (11 May 2010), online: voc.com.cn <http://www.voc.com.cn/article/201005/201005111549389355_2.html>; Liu, supra note 6 at 20.
28. Gu, and Cao, , supra note 7 at 1Google Scholar.
29. Ibid.
30. WANG Xin and CHEN Taixiu, “Bumingzhengxiang Mai Xia “Xiongzhai” Fayuan Yi Mai Fang Qizha Weiyou Chexiao Goufang Hetong (不明真相买下-凶宅.法院以卖方欺诈为由撤销购房合同) [Unaware of the Truth He Buys a Haunted House. The Court Revokes the Contract on the Basis of Fraud on the Part of the Seller]” cdfy.chinacourt.org (19 June 2008), online: cdfy.chinacourt.org <http://cdfy-old.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=11951>.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Gu, and Cao, , supra note 7 at 1Google Scholar.
34. Ibid.
35. Liu, , “Definition”, supra note 6 at 20Google Scholar.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Gu, and Cao, , supra note 7 at 1Google Scholar.
40. Ibid.
41. WANG Shuo, “Mai Fang Yu Xiongzhai, - Fali PK Qingli (买房遇凶宅 法理 PK 情理) [To Buy a Flat and to Find a “Haunted House” – Judicial Theory Against Common Sense]” Zhongguo xiaofeizhebao (中国消费者报) [China Consumer Journal] (30 January 2013) at 2 [Wang, “Against Common Sense”].
42. Ibid.
43. The Court of Pudong, for example, has come to a similar conclusion in February 2012, when ruling about the transfer of a haunted house where a crime of similar seriousness had taken place: a man had murdered his mother and brother, who had died after having been hit numerous times in the head and face with a hammer and a knife. See Pumin – (Min) Chuzi di 10764 Hao (浦民 – (民)初字第10764号), [Pudong People’s Court – Civil judgment – Chu Zi no. 10764] (2012).
44. On the subject see Wang, , “Against Common Sense”, supra note 41 at 2Google Scholar.
45. Gu, and Cao, , supra note 7 at 1Google Scholar.
46. Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Guanyu Jinyib Fayui Susong Tiaojie Zai Goujian Shehui Zhuyi Hexie Shehui Zhong Zhiji Zuoyong de Ruogan Yijian (fafa [2007] 9 hao) (最高人民法院关于进一步发挥诉讼调解在构建社会主义和谐社会中积极作用的若干意见 (法发 [2007] 9号)) [Some Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Further Stressing the Positive Role of Mediation in Building a Harmonious Socialist Society] (No. 9, 2007) point 5.
47. See above at s. II.
48. Caterina, , supra note 14 at 8Google Scholar.
49. LIU Aiwu and ZHOU Tao, “Chuzu Wu Cheng “Xiongzhai”, Zeren Shui Dan? (出租屋成’凶宅’,责任谁担?) [If a Rented House Becomes “Haunted”, Who Must Take Responsibility for It?]” Jiancha Ribao (检察日报) [Procuratorate Daily] (9 January 2010) no. 3 at 1.
50. For more details about this ruling see Chen and Zhang, supra note 25 at 74; Zhou Shiman, “Tianjin Shouli “Xiongzhai” Shoupei an Shenjie (天津首例’凶宅’索赔案审结) [The Conclusion of the First Example of a Case of Damage Compensation a Haunted House in Tianjin]” Beifangwang (北方网) [Enorth Netnews] (25 November 2004], online: Enorth Netnews <http://news.enorth.com.cn/system/2004/11/25/000911331.shtml>.
51. Zhou, , supra note 50Google Scholar.
52. The unpublished case is reported in Liu, , “On the Use of the Law”, supra note 24 at 43Google Scholar.
53. Ibid.
54. Wang Zhihui yu Zhang Hualei’an (王志辉与张华磊案) [Wang Zhihui v. Zhang Hualei], Henan Sheng An’yang Shi Zhongji Renmin Fayuan, Minshi Panjueshu, (2001) Anmin – Zhongzi di 887 Hao (河南省安阳市中级人民法院, 民事判决书, (2011) 安民一终字第887号) [Henan Province – Intermediate People’s Court of the City of An’yang – Civil judgement (2001) An Min Zhong Zi no. 887] [Wang Zhihui v. Zhang Hualei].
55. Liu, and Zhou, , supra note 49 at 1Google Scholar.
56. Liu, , “On the Use of the Law”, supra note 24 at 43Google Scholar.
57. On the subject see in more detail Zeitlin, , supra note 2 at 50Google Scholar.
58. WU, , ed., supra note 7 at 37Google Scholar.
59. Wang Zhihui v. Zhang Hualei, supra note 54.
60. Reed v. King, supra note 16.
61. Stambovsky v. Ackley, supra note 17.
62. WARNER, Daniel M., “Caveat Spiritus: A Jurisprudential Reflection upon the Law of Haunted Houses and Ghosts” (1993) 28:1Valparaiso University Law Review 207Google Scholar (cited in Caterina, , supra note 15 at 90–91Google Scholar).
63. On the subject see NOVARETTI, Simona, “General Clauses and Practice: the Use of the Principle of Good Faith in the Decisions of Chinese Courts” (2010) 18:5European Review of Private Law at 953Google Scholar.
64. On the topic, see supra note 11.