Fair dos people have gripes with celebrities not knowing what they're endorsing. But if an unknown actor did the same would the consumer sue the unknown or the company?

Fault definitely lies with the companies here.

i'd say the reason these lawsuits keep coming is because no one has a chance suing the huge real estate/government conglomerates.

the court reached the right conclusion but for the wrong reason.

real property (i.e., housing, land) has been bought and sold the world over for centuries subject to the maxim caveat emptor, that is, that the buyer has a duty to inspect the property and may not hold others liable for any reasonably discoverable defects absent outright fraud (e.g., painting over a cracked and crumbling wall to make it seem sturdy) by the seller.

it would be odd were china an exception to this rule.

That may work when the property is present for inspection, slowboat, but new units are often sold before construction is complete (and sometimes before it has even begun). bocaj: That's probably the right idea. There was a case about a month ago where a homeowner discovered that the property they bought had already been given to another buyer - the developer handed over the wrong keys and jumbled the addresses. Who got sued? The other homeowner, not the developer.

true, Joel.

but there's no indication in the article above that Zhang bought the place sight-unseen.

even had he entered into an agreement to buy the house sight-unseen (a common enough occurrence the world over), there's no indication that he took title to the premises--or that he "closed" the sale--without first inspecting the apartment.

if he declined to do so, he did so at his own risk, subject only to the representations and warranties that he received from the seller. and thus the rule mentioned above still stands.

Zhang may be a fool, but he's a competent enough fool in the eyes of the law to enter into a land-purchase contract.

Feng's advertisement was not an offer of sale for a guaranteed, commodity product. it was, rather, an invitation to negotiate with the developer for contractual purchase-sale of a piece of property distinct from the property represented by Feng.

there's no sound rule of law under which Feng could be held liable for Zhang's failure to inspect his real property (as distinguished from "personal property" like a car or a towel set) before purchase, or to strike a better contractual bargain for himself.

with so many shady dealings afoot in china's property markets, it's absurd that the court took as much time as it did on this frivolous case.

but there's no indication in the article above that Zhang bought the place sight-unseen.

are you in china? have you been? this is how ALL housing developments are sold.

bocaj:

buyers in china enter into property contracts sight-unseen; but they don't "buy" a place until they've registered the property transfer with the local gov.

the right of inspection is the buyer's to lose.

If you've ever seen the movie "Da Wan'r" you'll find this doubly amusing