ÁN LỆ SỐ 79/2025/AL: VỀ CHỦ THỂ GIAO KẾT HỢP ĐỒNG ĐẶT CỌC VÀ HIỆU LỰC CỦA HỢP ĐỒNG ĐẶT CỌC / CASE LA

Adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on December 24, 2025, and promulgated under Decision No. 339a/QĐ-CA dated December 25, 2025 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case law:

Cassation Decision No. 296/2023/DS-GĐT dated December 13, 2023 of the Judicial Committee of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City regarding the civil case “Dispute over a Deposit Contract” between the plaintiff, Ms. Lê Thị Tuyết N, and the defendant, Mr. Nguyễn Xuân Đ; with related parties Ms. Nguyễn Thị Hoàng K and Ms. Nguyễn Thị Hoàng M.

Location of the Relevant Content in the Case law: Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the section “The Court’s Assessment.”

Summary of the Case law:

Case law scenario 1:

The parties entered into a deposit contract to secure the execution of a contract for the transfer of land use rights between them. The depositor was aware that the subject matter of the intended transfer, the land use rights, was mortgaged to a bank, yet still entered into the deposit contract.

Legal solution 1:

In this circumstance, the Court must determine that the deposit contract constitutes an independent contract and remains valid and enforceable.

Case law scenario 2:

The deposit recipient did not hold ownership of the property subject to transfer and did not have the right to effectuate the transfer of such property; however, the deposit recipient was authorized by the property owner to enter into the deposit contract. The depositor was aware of this fact and did not object.

Legal solution 2:

In this circumstance, the Court must determine that the deposit recipient had the authority to enter into the deposit contract and that the deposit contract is valid and enforceable.

Relevant legal provisions:

Clause 2, Article 3; Article 117; and Article 328 of the Civil Code of 2015.

Keywords:

“Validity of a deposit contract”; “Mortgaged property”; “Authorization to enter into a deposit contract”; “Independent contract.”

Link for reading: CASELAW No 79/2025/AL