With the improvement of residents' living standards, keeping pets has become the choice of more and more families. However, from the frequent incidents of vicious dogs hurting people to dogs poisoned by isoniazid, these incidents are reminding people that pets in cities are The contradictions are becoming increasingly acute, and the recently controversial "dog-free community" in Yuncheng, Shanxi Province came into being against this background. So from a legal perspective, we have invited professionals from Beijing Zaiming Law Firm to interpret whether “dog-free communities” are compliant.

Recently, a “dog-free community” in Yuncheng, Shanxi Province has aroused heated discussions among netizens. In the newly built 550,000-square-meter community of this real estate developer, customers are required to sign a "no-dog agreement" before purchasing a house: only if they agree not to keep dogs can they be eligible to purchase a house in the community.

You need to sign a "dog-free agreement" before buying a house

Real estate developers said in an interview with the media, "This regulation is a soft constraint, and it is hoped to build a dog-free community from the source. If there are owners If you keep a dog after signing the terms, we cannot infringe on his property rights, but we will have a basis when we negotiate with the owner, that is, you have agreed to transfer some of your rights before purchasing the house."

Is it an overbearing clause for real estate developers to restrict dog ownership?

In fact, it is very common to formulate community covenants on civilized dog-raising issues, but this is the first time I have heard of an agreement before selling a house that "you can buy a house only if you don't keep dogs." Dog-free communities are indeed very helpful in mediating social conflicts and antagonisms caused by pet dogs. Dog-loving dog owners and people who are afraid of dogs and dislike dogs live separately. Both parties can enjoy themselves and achieve a win-win situation simply and directly. But behind the scenes The legal issues are not that simple.

First of all, in the process of buying and selling houses, does the developer have the right to screen customers by setting special conditions? Some people believe that the developer has set a no-dog clause in the contract in advance and has clearly informed this clause before signing the contract. The agreement between the buyer and seller on the premise of their own free will should not be considered illegal. But we have to think about a question: If it is allowed to put a "no dog clause" when buying a house, can the developer have a no-smoker clause? Clause prohibiting people with mental illness from buying houses? Clause prohibiting people with criminal records from buying houses?

In fact, when the real estate market is in an upward cycle, developers in various places will often set some additional conditions for real estate transactions, such as the purchase of a house in full, the provident fund cannot be used to buy a house, the purchase of a house must be bundled with a parking space, etc. As preconditions for a house transaction, these are essentially the same as "You can buy a house without a dog." Although it is not illegal in some places, it isHowever, it has the purpose of screening customers, restricts the legitimate rights and interests of some consumers, and is also suspected of overbearing clauses.

Is the prohibition clause feasible?

Because there are restrictions on purchasing a house, there may be some unnecessary troubles after purchasing a house.

The owner who first signed the agreement and successfully bought the house has no obligation to help other owners and property owners check whether the second-hand house buyer has a dog when he or she resells the house. So if someone keeps a dog and buys a second-hand house in the community, what should happen to the property? We can’t force prospective buyers of second-hand houses to sign a “no dog” agreement before they can buy a house.

In addition, although the no-dog clause when buying a house is described by developers as a "soft restriction", it is indeed a "real restriction" for home buyers: if you don't sign, the house will not be sold to you. But what should we do if the owners who have purchased a house change their original intention, or if there are second-hand house owners who have dogs moving into the community and they insist on keeping dogs and refuse to listen to dissuasion, or the property management is not in place in the future? If the no-breeding clause is interpreted as a "soft constraint", then I am afraid no one can do anything about it; if the "no-breeding clause" is regarded as part of the contract, then if other owners who do not keep dogs are affected by the dog-raising owners, they will have no choice but to negotiate , can only claim compensation or compensation from the developer based on the house purchase contract.

In short, the original intention of the dog-raising agreement is good. It wants to eliminate dog-raising and the possible disadvantages from the source, but it is difficult to implement. Developers and real estate developers pass on the management responsibilities they should bear to the owners by screening customers. And for truly civilized and law-abiding dog owners, this in itself is an unreasonable restriction and discrimination.

We should not encourage this kind of confrontation. The legitimate rights and interests of every law-abiding citizen deserve to be respected. Civilized dog raising requires more stringent and detailed legislation and a more optimized management system, as well as coordinated supervision and management by residents, communities and relevant management departments. "Ban it all" is not the best strategy.