A proposal to ban the transfer of contracts for the purchase of off-plan housing, while studying a roadmap toward selling homes only after construction is complete, has drawn public attention. The proposal, put forward by a National Assembly deputy during a debate on the draft amended Law on Real Estate Business on October 30, aims to curb speculation and reduce risks for homebuyers.

Economist Le Ba Chi Nhan said the right to transfer a contract should not be equated with real estate speculation.

He said buyers who transfer off-plan housing contracts to make a profit are not necessarily engaging in harmful speculation. Some buy homes to meet their actual housing needs but later face changes in their financial plans, employment or family circumstances, forcing them to transfer the contracts to recover their investment.

“The right to transfer contracts also functions as a protective mechanism for buyers, providing them a financial exit strategy when unable to maintain payment obligations. Therefore, an absolute ban could restrict citizens' rights to property disposition and legitimate transactions,” Nhan said.

Sharing this perspective, attorney Dang Thi Thuy Huyen, Director of HPL & Partners Law Firm under the HCMC Bar Association, emphasized that banning off-plan housing contract transfers requires careful study and thorough impact assessment.

“This is not an activity operating outside legal regulation, but rather a legally recognized mechanism for transferring contractual rights and obligations,” Huyen stressed.

He said that a clear distinction must be made between transferring ownership of a completed home and transferring the buyer's legal standing within an off-plan housing purchase contract. In the latter case, the subject of transfer consists of rights and obligations arising from a legally established contract.

Consequently, if lawmakers decide to ban these transactions outright, they must clarify the grounds, scope, and necessity for restricting buyers' legitimate property rights.

The attorney acknowledged that concerns regarding speculation via contract transfers are grounded in reality. Under progressive payment mechanisms, buyers need only deploy a fraction of initial capital to secure purchase rights. As market prices rise, they can transfer contracts to capture price spreads without paying the full property value.

If repeated frequently, transaction prices can drift further away from actual use value and the realistic affordability of genuine housing seekers.

However, according to Huyen, contract transfers represent only one method utilized for speculation rather than the sole driver of escalating home prices. Real estate pricing remains impacted by supply volume, land costs, credit access, infrastructure, urban planning, project development expenses, and overall market transparency.

If authorities ban contract transfers without addressing these root causes, the effectiveness in curbing housing prices may be severely limited.

Moreover, policy must distinguish short-term speculators from genuine-demand buyers forced to transfer due to changing personal circumstances.

“A family that has paid 40 percent of an apartment contract value but subsequently faces financial distress, loses the capacity to service bank loans, or must relocate may need to transfer the contract to recover capital.

"If banned from doing so, they face the risk of defaulting on further payments while being unable to assign the contract. A policy intended to protect buyers could end up harming a segment of the population,” Huyen said.

Transfer ban could drive transactions underground

According to economist Le Ba Chi Nhan, banning contract transfers may not eliminate speculation and could instead push it into other forms.

When transfers of housing purchase contracts are no longer permitted, speculators may turn to deposit agreements, reservation agreements, transfers of rights arising from civil agreements or other arrangements. As a result, transactions in the formal market could decline while additional risks emerge in the informal market.

Lawyer Dang Thi Thuy Huyen also warned that an outright ban could lead to transactions conducted through other arrangements designed to conceal the transfer of economic benefits. The legal risks for the final buyer could then be even greater.

From a legal perspective, Huyen said restrictions on the right to transact must be considered in relation to property rights and freedom of contract.

“Besides the risk of driving transactions underground, restricting the right to transfer contracts could also reduce demand for off-plan housing and make it harder for businesses to raise capital. This, in turn, could affect project implementation schedules and the supply of housing,” Huyen said.

Hong Khanh