The error, which came to light one year after Mr. Mo took possession of his unit in Ho Chau City, Zhejiang province, was caused by the developer affixing the wrong unit number to his apartment door. This significant oversight led to a legal dispute involving the developer, building management, and the actual property owners.

One year ago, Mr. Mo (name changed) took possession of an apartment in a new residential complex in Nan Lien district. He then spent months selecting materials, overseeing construction, and finishing the interior. As he prepared to move in, an unfamiliar couple appeared at the apartment door, asking, "Who are you? Why are you in our home?" Upon reviewing documents, all parties discovered the developer had mistakenly affixed unit number 104 to the door of apartment 103. Due to the similar layouts of the two units and a lack of thorough verification during handover, Mr. Mo renovated the wrong apartment.

The apartment's true owners were Mr. and Mrs. Wu. As they had no immediate need to occupy it, Mr. Mo only visited the unit one year after taking possession, at which point he discovered the error. Mr. Mo demanded that the developer, the building management unit, and Mr. and Mrs. Wu all share responsibility. However, the parties could not reach an agreement.

The developer admitted to the incorrect numbering but argued Mr. Mo failed to verify documents during handover. The building management unit stated its responsibilities included registering construction, collecting deposits, and conducting regular patrols, not verifying apartment numbers. Mr. and Mrs. Wu stated they did not choose this renovation style and therefore did not agree to pay the full incurred costs.

Unable to find common ground, Mr. Mo sued the developer. The building management unit was included in the lawsuit as a co-defendant, while Mr. and Mrs. Wu participated as a third party.

According to Judge Ni Jiali, any organization or individual causing damage to another through their own negligence must bear appropriate compensation. The court determined the developer failed to fully perform its inspection duties during property handover, resulting in the incorrect unit numbering. The building management unit also shared responsibility for not detecting the error during the 6 months of construction, despite regular patrols and renovation oversight. However, the court also found Mr. Mo lacked due diligence by not checking the floor plan and unit information before starting renovations. Mr. and Mrs. Wu were found to be without fault in the incident and retained the right to demand the apartment's restoration to its original condition.

After several rounds of mediation, the parties reached an agreement. The developer agreed to compensate Mr. Mo with one parking space in the residential complex (approximately 100,000 yuan). The management unit waived service fees for two years. Mr. Wu's family agreed to contribute 50,000 yuan to offset part of the renovation costs. The two sides also agreed that Mr. Mo could dismantle and take away movable equipment and furniture, while fixtures attached to the apartment would remain.

Nhat Minh (According to Finance Sina)