An agent accuses Xie Na of "threatening," the reason being a "bypass" in a home purchase.
[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
Case review
On the evening of February 7, a tip-off alleged that Zhang Jie and Xie Na skipped the agent fee when buying a house. An agent under the pseudonym H claimed that Zhang Jie and Xie Na viewed a property under his guidance twice, on June 21 and 22, 2019, after which H discovered that the two had privately contacted the landlord to purchase the property, thereby avoiding a substantial agent fee. The agent also claimed that he was subsequently threatened by the other party's lawyer.
In response, on February 8, Zhang Jie and Xie Na's legal team issued a lawyer's statement denying the allegations of "skipping the agent" and "threatening," and stated that "Mr. H's" covert filming severely infringed upon Zhang Jie and Xie Na's portrait rights and privacy rights.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Article 965
If, after accepting the intermediary's services, the client uses the transaction opportunities or intermediary services provided by the intermediary to bypass the intermediary and directly enter into a contract, the client shall pay remuneration to the intermediary.
[1] The author's perspective
With the rapid development of the real estate industry, intermediary service agencies for housing transactions have sprung up in recent years, and disputes over brokerage service contracts have been increasing year by year. "Jumping the broker" refers to conduct in the housing transaction market where the buyer (or lessee)/seller (or lessor) bypasses the original intermediary and completes the transaction through other channels by using the information and services provided by the original intermediary. The term itself is not a legal term. The Civil Code replaced the concept of "brokerage contract" in the Contract Law with the concept of "intermediary contract," and through the provisions of Article 965, for the first time provided explicit legal regulation of "jumping the broker" conduct, thereby protecting the intermediary's right to remuneration.
This means that if the buyer has already accepted the intermediary’s services but bypasses the intermediary to directly conclude a transaction with the homeowner, it harms the intermediary’s interests, and therefore the buyer is still required to pay the corresponding intermediary fee to the intermediary. However, “directly concluding a contract” here refers to the two parties transacting directly without going through any intermediary. In reality, sellers usually entrust their homes to multiple intermediaries for listing. If the buyer completes the transaction through another intermediary with lower fees and better service, it does not constitute “circumventing the intermediary.” Therefore, during the home purchase process, even if an intermediary has shown the buyer the relevant property, as long as no relevant agreement has been signed, the buyer still has the opportunity to obtain information about the same property through other legitimate channels. Thus, the buyer has the right to choose an intermediary with a lower quote and better service to complete the transaction, and such a situation does not constitute a breach of contract by “circumventing the intermediary.”
