>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No.1: Shanghai Zhongyuan Property Consultancy Co., Ltd. v. Tao Dehua (intermediary contract dispute)
指导案例1号:上海中原物业顾问有限公司诉陶德华居间合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Shanghai Zhongyuan Property Consultancy Co., Ltd. v. Tao Dehua (intermediary contract dispute)@#
(Issued upon deliberation and adoption by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 20, 2011)@#
Keywords:@#
civil; intermediary contract; purchase and sale of used homes; breach of contract@#
's Key Points@#
In an intermediary contract for the purchase and sale of used homes, a clause that prohibits the purchaser from concluding a real estate purchase contract with the seller by using housing information provided by the agency but without the involvement of the agency is legal and valid. However, where the seller lists the same home at multiple real estate agencies and the purchaser acquires information on the same home through other proper channels available to the public, the purchaser has the right to select the agency with a low quoted price and good service to facilitate the formation of a real estate purchase contract, which is not a use of the housing information provided by the agency with which the purchaser has previously signed an agreement and thus does not constitute a breach of contract.@#
Relevant Legal Provisions@#
Article 424人丑就要多读书 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China@#
Basic Facts卧槽不见了@#
Plaintiff Shanghai Zhongyuan Property Consultancy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhongyuan Company”) alleged that: Defendant Tao Dehua, by using information provided by Zhongyuan Company regarding a property located at Zhuzhou Road, Hongkou District of Shanghai Municipality, deliberately bypassed the real estate agency and directly concluded a real estate purchase contract in private with the seller. In violation of the provisions of the Confirmation of Prospective Real Estate Purchase, Tao's act is an act of maliciously concluding a deal without the involvement of the real estate agency. Hence, Zhongyuan Company requested the court to order Tao Dehua to pay liquidated damages of 16,500 yuan.@#
Defendant Tao Dehua contended that: The original owner, Li (first name withheld), of the property at issue authorized multiple agencies to sell the property. Zhongyuan Company was not a sole agency with an exclusive control of information regarding the property, and Tao Dehua did not use information provided by Zhongyuan Company. Thus, there was no breach of contract for concluding a deal without the involvement of the real estate agency.@#
At trial, the court found that: In the second half of 2008, in order to sell the property at issue, the original homeowner, Li, listed it at multiple real estate agencies. On October 22, 2008, a realtor from a real estate agency company in Shanghai brought Tao Dehua to the property; on November 23 of the same year, an agent from a real estate consultancy company in Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate consultancy company") brought Tao Dehua's wife, Cao (first name withheld), to the property; and on November 27 of the same year, an agent from Zhongyuan Company brought Tao Dehua to the property, and both parties signed a of Confirmation of Prospective Real Estate Purchase on the same day. According to the provision of Article 2.4 of the Confirmation of Prospective Real Estate Purchase, where, within six months after Tao Dehua inspected the property, Tao Dehua, his principal, agent, representative, or designee, or any other person associated with him concluded a deal regarding the property with any third party by using any information, opportunity or other condition provided by Zhongyuan Company, bypassing Zhongyuan Company, Tao Dehua should pay Zhongyuan Company liquidated damages of 1% of the actual purchase price for the property as agreed with the seller. Zhongyuan Company's quoted price for the property was 1.65 million yuan. However, the quoted price of the real estate consultancy company was 1.45 million yuan, and this company actively negotiated the price further with the seller. On November 30, through brokerage of the real estate consultancy company, Tao Dehua and the seller concluded a real estate purchase contract at a purchase price of 1.38 million yuan. Afterwards, both parties underwent the formalities for the transfer of real estate, and Tao Dehua paid a commission fee of 13,800 yuan to the real estate consultancy company.@#
Judgment@#
On June 23, 2009, the Hongkou District People's Court of Shanghai issued a civil (No. 912 [2009], First, Civil Division III, Hongkou) as follows: The defendant Tao Dehua should, within 10 days from the effective date of this , pay liquidated damages of 13,800 yuan to Zhongyuan Company. After this was pronounced, Tao Dehua filed an appeal. On September 4, 2009, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai issued a civil (No. 1508 [2009], Final, Civil Division II, No. 2 Intermediate, Shanghai) as follows: (1) the civil (No. 912 [2009], First, Civil Division III, Hongkou) was overruled; and (2) the claim of Zhongyuan Company that Tao Dehua should pay liquated damages of 16,500 yuan was not granted.@#
Judgment's Reasoning@#
In the final in effect, the court determined that: The Confirmation of Prospective Real Estate Purchase was in the nature of an intermediary contract. Article 2.4 thereof was a standard clause common in intermediary contracts for the purchase and sale of real estate to prohibit deals made directly between the purchaser and the seller without the involvement of the agency. This standard clause was intended to prevent a purchaser from buying a property by using information provided by an agency but without the involvement of the agency, as it would result in the agency being unable to obtain the agreed commission fee. Since such a clause did not exempt one party from any liability, increase the other party's liability or exclude any primary right of the other party, it should be held valid. According to this clause, it was crucial to check whether the purchaser took advantage of the housing information and opportunities provided by the alleging agency when determining whether the purchaser breached a contract by making a deal without the involvement of the agency. If the purchaser obtained information regarding the same property through other proper channels available to the public instead of using the information provided by the alleging agency, the purchaser had the right to select the agency with a low quoted price and good service to facilitate the formation of a real estate purchase contract, which did not constitute a breach of contract for making a deal without the involvement of the alleging agency. In this case, the original homeowner sold the same home through multiple agencies. Tao Dehua and his family learned of information regarding the same property from various agencies, and concluded a real estate purchase contract through another agency. Tao Dehua did not use information and opportunities provided by Zhongyuan Company, and therefore his act did not constitute a breach of contract. Thus, the appellate court did not support the claim of Zhongyuan Company.
 上海中原物业顾问有限公司诉陶德华居间合同纠纷案@#
(最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2011年12月20日发布)@#
关键词@#
民事 居间合同 二手房买卖 违约@#
裁判要点我我我什么都没做@#
房屋买卖居间合同中关于禁止买方利用中介公司提供的房源信息却绕开该中介公司与卖方签订房屋买卖合同的约定合法有效。但是,当卖方将同一房屋通过多个中介公司挂牌出售时,买方通过其他公众可以获知的正当途径获得相同房源信息的,买方有权选择报价低、服务好的中介公司促成房屋买卖合同成立,其行为并没有利用先前与之签约中介公司的房源信息,故不构成违约。@#
相关法条@#
中华人民共和国合同法》第四百二十四条来自北大法宝@#
基本案情@#
原告上海中原物业顾问有限公司(简称中原公司)诉称:被告陶德华利用中原公司提供的上海市虹口区株洲路某号房屋销售信息,故意跳过中介,私自与卖方直接签订购房合同,违反了《房地产求购确认书》的约定,属于恶意“跳单”行为,请求法院判令陶德华按约支付中原公司违约金1.65万元。@#
被告陶德华辩称:涉案房屋原产权人李某某委托多家中介公司出售房屋,中原公司并非独家掌握该房源信息,也非独家代理销售。陶德华并没有利用中原公司提供的信息,不存在“跳单”违约行为。@#
法院经审理查明:2008年下半年,原产权人李某某到多家房屋中介公司挂牌销售涉案房屋。2008年10月22日,上海某房地产经纪有限公司带陶德华看了该房屋;11月23日,上海某房地产顾问有限公司(简称某房地产顾问公司)带陶德华之妻曹某某看了该房屋;11月27日,中原公司带陶德华看了该房屋,并于同日与陶德华签订了《房地产求购确认书》。该《确认书》第2.4条约定,陶德华在验看过该房地产后六个月内,陶德华或其委托人、代理人、代表人、承办人等与陶德华有关联的人,利用中原公司提供的信息、机会等条件但未通过中原公司而与第三方达成买卖交易的,陶德华应按照与出卖方就该房地产买卖达成的实际成交价的1%,向中原公司支付违约金。当时中原公司对该房屋报价165万元,而某房地产顾问公司报价145万元,并积极与卖方协商价格。11月30日,在某房地产顾问公司居间下,陶德华与卖方签订了房屋买卖合同,成交价138万元。后买卖双方办理了过户手续,陶德华向某房地产顾问公司支付佣金1. 38万元。@#
裁判结果@#
上海市虹口区人民法院于2009年6月23日作出(2009)虹民三(民)初字第912号民事判决:被告陶德华应于判决生效之日起十日内向原告中原公司支付违约金1.38万元。宣判后,陶德华提出上诉。上海市第二中级人民法院于2009年9月4日作出(2009)沪二中民二(民)终字第1508号民事判决:一、撤销上海市虹口区人民法院(2009)虹民三(民)初字第912号民事判决;二、中原公司要求陶德华支付违约金1.65万元的诉讼请求,不予支持。@#
裁判理由@#
法院生效裁判认为:中原公司与陶德华签订的《房地产求购确认书》属于居间合同性质,其中第2.4条的约定,属于房屋买卖居间合同中常有的禁止“跳单”格式条款,其本意是为防止买方利用中介公司提供的房源信息却“跳”过中介公司购买房屋,从而使中介公司无法得到应得的佣金,该约定并不存在免除一方责任、加重对方责任、排除对方主要权利的情形,应认定有效。根据该条约定,衡量买方是否“跳单”违约的关键,是看买方是否利用了该中介公司提供的房源信息、机会等条件。如果买方并未利用该中介公司提供的信息、机会等条件,而是通过其他公众可以获知的正当途径获得同一房源信息,则买方有权选择报价低、服务好的中介公司促成房屋买卖合同成立,而不构成“跳单”违约。本案中,原产权人通过多家中介公司挂牌出售同一房屋,陶德华及其家人分别通过不同的中介公司了解到同一房源信息,并通过其他中介公司促成了房屋买卖合同成立。因此,陶德华并没有利用中原公司的信息、机会,故不构成违约,对中原公司的诉讼请求不予支持。@#
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese