Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications of "jumping orders" in real estate transactions, highlighting various court cases that define the conditions under which such actions are considered a breach of contract [2][4][12]. Group 1: Definition and Legal Context - "Jumping orders" occurs when a client bypasses a real estate agent to directly negotiate with the property owner after utilizing the agent's services [2][4]. - Courts have established criteria for determining whether "jumping orders" has occurred, including the acceptance of intermediary services, the use of transaction opportunities provided by the intermediary, and the act of bypassing the intermediary to finalize a contract [4][12]. Group 2: Case Studies - In a case from Sichuan, a buyer utilized an agent's services to view a property but later signed a contract directly with the owner, leading the court to rule that this constituted "jumping orders" [2][3]. - Another case involved a company that viewed multiple properties through one agent but ultimately signed a lease through another agent, with the court ruling that the original agent's services were not substantial enough to warrant a "jumping orders" claim [4][5]. - A case in Guangzhou demonstrated a clear instance of "jumping orders," where both parties were found to have maliciously bypassed the agent after utilizing their services, resulting in a court ruling for the agent's compensation [11][12]. Group 3: Implications for Real Estate Agents - Real estate agents must provide substantial services beyond mere property viewing to establish a claim against clients for "jumping orders" [5][10]. - Documentation such as viewing records, communication logs, and evidence of service provision are crucial for agents to support their claims in court [12][13]. - The legal framework surrounding "jumping orders" emphasizes the importance of clear agreements and the nature of services provided by agents to protect their interests [12][13].

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]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications of "jumping orders" in real estate transactions, highlighting various court cases that define the conditions under which such actions are considered a breach of contract [2][4][6]. Group 1: Definition and Legal Cases - "Jumping orders" occurs when a client bypasses a real estate agent to finalize a deal directly with the property owner, often leading to disputes over commission fees [2][5]. - 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, leading to a ruling of "jumping orders" [2][6]. - The Beijing First Intermediate Court case emphasizes that three criteria must be met to determine "jumping orders": acceptance of intermediary services, utilization of transaction opportunities, and bypassing the intermediary to sign a contract [6][12]. Group 2: Court Rulings and Precedents - 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, it does not constitute "jumping orders" [6][7]. - In a recent case, a company that used one intermediary but signed a lease with another was ruled not to have committed "jumping orders" due to the lack of exclusive service and the higher rent negotiated with the second intermediary [5][6]. - Another case in Guangzhou demonstrated that both parties involved in a transaction that occurred after the exclusivity period of a contract were found to have maliciously "jumped orders," resulting in a court ruling for the payment of commission fees [12][13]. Group 3: Implications for Real Estate Agents - Real estate agents are advised to document their services, including communication records and viewing confirmations, to establish their role in facilitating transactions and protect their commission rights [12][13]. - The article suggests that the determination of "jumping orders" hinges on whether the client accepted the intermediary's services, utilized the provided transaction opportunities, and subsequently bypassed the intermediary [12][13].

Core Points - The case revolves around a dispute between a client, Awen, and a real estate agency, Company A, regarding a property transaction and alleged breach of contract [1][2] - Awen is accused of "jumping the order" by bypassing the agency after utilizing their services to find a property [2][3] - The court ruled that Awen did indeed breach the contract by directly purchasing the property without compensating the agency, leading to a penalty of 60,000 yuan [3][4] Summary by Sections Contractual Agreement - Awen signed a "Viewing Confirmation" which stipulated a 2% commission fee if he purchased a property through Company A, and a 3% penalty if he bypassed the agency [1][2] - The court recognized the existence of a contractual relationship based on the signed document [3] Court Proceedings - Awen argued that the agency's services were not essential to the transaction, claiming his ex-wife had prior knowledge of the property and negotiated the purchase directly [2][4] - The court found that Awen had indeed utilized the agency's services and subsequently bypassed them, fulfilling the criteria for "jumping the order" as defined by law [3][4] Legal Definitions and Implications - "Jumping the order" is defined as a client using an agency's services to find a property but then directly negotiating with the seller to avoid paying the agency's commission [7][8] - The legal consequences of "jumping the order" include the obligation to pay the agreed commission and any stipulated penalties [8][9] Recommendations for Clients - Clients are advised to choose reputable agencies and carefully review contract terms to avoid potential disputes related to "jumping the order" [12][13] - Maintaining proper documentation of transactions and communications can help in proving the legitimacy of the transaction and the use of agency services [13][14]