Property fees are fees collected by property service enterprises from owners who receive property services in accordance with the provisions of the property management service contract. The timely and full payment of property fees by homeowners is of great significance for ensuring the quality of life in residential communities and achieving property appreciation and preservation. Can owners protect their legitimate rights and interests by refusing to pay property fees in case of property contract disputes? Recently, several cases involving property service contract disputes have been resolved by the two level courts in Jiangmen City, Guangdong Province, providing an answer to this question. The property fee has increased but not exceeded the agreed upon amount, and default constitutes a breach of contract. A real estate company and a property management company have signed a "Preliminary Property Service Contract", which stipulates that the property management company will provide property services to the residential community involved. The property fee collection standard is 1.65 yuan per square meter of building area per month. After the contract was signed, the property management company actually charged a property fee of 1.2 yuan per square meter of building area per month. Two years later, the property management company decided to adjust the discount standard and charge a property fee of 1.48 yuan per square meter of building area per month. Upon hearing the news, the community owners Lin and Liao refused to pay the subsequent property fees on the grounds of not signing a property service contract with the property management company. After the trial, the People's Court of Taishan City held that in the absence of a community establishment committee, the property service contract signed by the developer and the property management company in accordance with the law is binding on all owners. The property management company charged property fees of 1.48 yuan per square meter of construction area per month to the owners, which did not exceed the agreed standard in the contract. As community owners, Lin and Liao, who have enjoyed the property management services provided by the property management company according to the agreement, should pay the corresponding fees in full and on time. Their behavior of defaulting on property fees has constituted a breach of contract, and they should bear corresponding breach of contract responsibilities in accordance with the law. In summary, Lin and Liao were sentenced to pay property fees and corresponding liquidated damages for overdue payments to the property management company. Unable to prove any defects in the service, the property management company was sentenced to pay property fees. The property management company signed a "preliminary property service contract" with the owner Yang, agreeing that the property management company would provide property management services for a certain property of Yang located in Enping City. Yang would pay property fees to the property management company at a standard of 2.5 yuan per square meter per month for the residential area. At the same time, it is agreed that the company will provide collection and payment services for water and electricity fees, and the shared electricity fees will be shared among the owners or users based on the proportion of each household or building area per month. Yang should pay the property fee on the 15th of each month. If the payment is overdue, a penalty of 1% of the payable property fee will be paid daily from the date of delay. After the contract was signed, the property management company provided property management services to Yang according to the agreement. One year later, Yang claimed that the property management company had failed to fulfill its management obligations, changed the management entity without authorization, had high charging standards, and had opaque financial accounts. He accumulated unpaid shared electricity fees of 336.78 yuan, property fees of 11971.15 yuan, and liquidated damages of 6023.27 yuan. He believed that he had the right to refuse to pay the corresponding fees until the property management company corrected the wrong performance behavior. After the trial by the People's Court of Enping City, it was found that the property service contract signed by the property owners' committee and the property service personnel selected by the property owners' assembly in accordance with the law is binding on the property owners. The evidence provided by Yang cannot fully prove that the property management company did not fulfill the property services stipulated in the contract, resulting in the inability to achieve the contract objectives