Group 1 - The article discusses the legal definition and implications of "jumping orders" in real estate transactions, highlighting recent court cases that clarify what constitutes such behavior [2][3][4] - A case from Sichuan province illustrates that even without a written contract, a relationship can be established through actions such as viewing properties and receiving information from a real estate agent, leading to a ruling of "jumping orders" [2] - The Beijing court case emphasizes that three criteria must be met to determine "jumping orders": acceptance of intermediary services, utilization of the transaction opportunity or mediation services, and bypassing the intermediary to sign a contract [3] Group 2 - The Supreme Court's 2011 guiding case established that if a buyer obtains property information through legitimate means and completes a transaction without the intermediary's involvement, it does not constitute "jumping orders" [4] - A notable case involving a celebrity couple concluded that without evidence of a formal agreement, the claim of "jumping orders" was unfounded, reinforcing the idea that buyers can choose the intermediary that best suits their needs [5] - In another case from Liaoning, the court ruled that even without a written contract, the intermediary's services were crucial to the transaction, thus requiring the buyer to pay a fee [5] Group 3 - A case in Guangzhou demonstrated that both parties utilized the intermediary's services to facilitate a transaction, resulting in a ruling of malicious "jumping orders" and requiring payment of intermediary fees [6] - Legal experts suggest that evidence such as viewing records and communication logs can help intermediaries prove they provided essential services, which is critical in determining whether "jumping orders" occurred [6] - The article outlines that the key factors in assessing "jumping orders" include whether intermediary services were accepted, whether the intermediary's transaction opportunities were utilized, and whether the contract was signed directly, bypassing the intermediary [6]
客户9次看房后换中介成交,算不算“跳单”?法院判了
Mei Ri Jing Ji Xin Wen·2025-08-27 15:58