Prefabricated Cement House Scam Cases
Currently, no cases have been clearly identified as 'scams' regarding prefabricated cement houses, but there are transaction issues and disputes, mainly including the Luoshan County Court case and the Shijiazhuang Xinle City case in Hebei Province.
Luoshan County Court Case: In August 2023, a construction company signed an agreement with Mr. Zhang for the construction of four prefabricated concrete houses, which were to be transported to Mr. Zhang's homestead for assembly at a cost of 40,000 yuan. After installation in September of the same year, Mr. Zhang paid 35,000 yuan, leaving 5,000 yuan unpaid. After repeated demands by the construction company, Mr. Zhang refused to pay and was sued in court. Mr. Zhang claimed that the house had numerous quality issues, such as leaks, cracks, and inconsistent door sizes, and believed that the 5,000 yuan was a discount. After mediation by the judge, both parties reached an agreement: Mr. Zhang paid 2,000 yuan for construction costs on the spot and took responsibility for subsequent repairs, and the construction company withdrew the lawsuit. In this case, although the construction company completed the construction and assembly of the house, quality issues led Mr. Zhang to refuse payment of the remaining amount, resulting in a dispute. While it cannot be simply classified as a scam, it reflects that during the construction of prefabricated cement houses, there may be situations where the construction party does not strictly adhere to standards, resulting in substandard house quality and losses to consumers.
Shijiazhuang Xinle City Case in Hebei Province: Mr. Lv spent 31,000 yuan to purchase three connected cement houses from a local cement products company, which promised to deliver the houses within ten days but took two months. When the houses arrived, Mr. Lv found serious problems: there were only windows and no doors, the door area clearly marked on the drawings was sealed with concrete, and there were issues such as excessively high thresholds, wall cracks, and gaps between the three houses. Initially, the manufacturer agreed to make doors as a remedy and refund 3,000 yuan as compensation, but when Mr. Lv requested an additional 1,000 yuan deposit, the manufacturer's technicians refused to make the repairs and were unwilling to refund the money or make the doors. In this case, the manufacturer failed to deliver the houses as promised and the delivered houses did not match the agreement, showing clear breach of contract. During subsequent negotiations for remedies, unreasonable conditions were set, and the manufacturer refused to fulfill its promises, causing economic losses and distress to the consumer.
