本文關(guān)鍵詞： 跳單 居間合同 委托合同 混合合同 獨家委托條款　出處：《華南理工大學》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：鑒于中國是一個人口大國，土地資源有限，且中國人一直有“買房養(yǎng)老”的傳統(tǒng)觀念，面對房地產(chǎn)市場“供需不平衡”之現(xiàn)狀，購房已成為大部分中國人的人生奮斗目標。此外，市場經(jīng)濟的迅猛發(fā)展更是為房地產(chǎn)市場的繁榮發(fā)展奠定了堅實的經(jīng)濟基礎(chǔ)。然而，在整個房地產(chǎn)交易過程中，二手房交易已成為一種趨勢，伴隨而來的就是二手房交易過程中普遍存在的“跳單”現(xiàn)象�？v觀房地產(chǎn)交易實務(wù)，不難發(fā)現(xiàn)，“跳單”問題不僅是困擾二手房市場的一大難題，，而且成為各個中介公司的一塊“心病”。能否合理、妥善地解決“跳單”問題關(guān)系市場經(jīng)濟的健康、可持續(xù)發(fā)展，也關(guān)乎和諧社會之構(gòu)建。因此，本文嘗試對房地產(chǎn)交易“跳單”現(xiàn)象進行分析和探討，從而尋求合理、有效的路徑以更好的處理“跳單”糾紛。 2011年12月20日最高人民法院發(fā)布的指導性案例為《房地產(chǎn)求購確認書》關(guān)于“跳單”責任的確定，在司法實踐方面指明了道路。本文以此案為背景，基于合同法的基本原則及法律規(guī)定，對“跳單”責任進行分析，努力提高對實踐的指導意義。本文主要從房地產(chǎn)交易實務(wù)中的典型案例入手，著重分析“跳單”現(xiàn)象，對其進行學理的相關(guān)分析，在結(jié)合《合同法》的相關(guān)內(nèi)容中，更好的協(xié)調(diào)購房者尤其是小業(yè)主、房屋中介、售房者的三方利益，以更好的規(guī)范房地產(chǎn)交易市場。 筆者認為，將《房地產(chǎn)求購確認書》定性為兼有委托和居間屬性的混合合同，在適用《合同法》總則之外無詳細規(guī)定的情形下參照適用委托合同和居間合同的相關(guān)規(guī)定，解決其法律適用上的問題。在不同階段的中介活動中出現(xiàn)“跳單”現(xiàn)象的是最初的委托階段，在這個階段筆者認為委托人應享有任意解除權(quán)，這個權(quán)利使用的前提是委托人不能以惡意行使之，合理的“跳單”應是允許的，合理的“跳單”即是委托人合法使用任意解除權(quán)的情形，我們應該予以規(guī)制的是惡意“跳單”行為，只有允許合理“跳單”，規(guī)制惡意“跳單”才能促使房產(chǎn)中介市場進行良性競爭。
[Abstract]:In view of the fact that China is a large country with a large population and limited land resources, and that the Chinese people have always had the traditional concept of "buying houses and providing for the aged", they are faced with the "imbalance between supply and demand" in the real estate market. Housing purchase has become the life goal of most Chinese people. In addition, the rapid development of the market economy has laid a solid economic foundation for the prosperity of the real estate market. However, in the whole process of real estate transactions, Second-hand housing transaction has become a trend, accompanied by a common second-hand housing transactions in the process of "jump order" phenomenon. Looking at the real estate transaction practice, it is not difficult to find that the "jump order" problem is not only a problem puzzling the second-hand housing market. Moreover, it has become a "heart concern" of various intermediary companies. Whether we can reasonably and properly solve the problem of "jumping orders" is related to the healthy and sustainable development of the market economy, and also to the construction of a harmonious society. This paper attempts to analyze and discuss the phenomenon of "jump order" in real estate transaction, so as to find a reasonable and effective way to deal with the dispute of "jump order" better. In December 20th 2011, the guiding case issued by the Supreme people's Court was the determination of the responsibility of "jump order" in the "Real Estate purchase confirmation letter", which pointed out the way in judicial practice. This paper takes this case as the background. Based on the basic principles and legal provisions of the contract law, this paper analyzes the liability of "order jumping" and tries to improve the guiding significance of the practice. This paper mainly starts with the typical cases in the practice of real estate transactions, and focuses on the analysis of the phenomenon of "skipping orders". In combination with the relevant contents of contract Law, we can better coordinate the tripartite interests of buyers, especially small owners, housing agents and sellers, in order to better regulate the real estate transaction market. The author believes that the confirmation of purchase of Real Estate is defined as a mixed contract with both entrustment and intermediation, and the relevant provisions of the entrustment contract and the intermediary contract are applied in the case of no detailed provisions outside the general rules of the contract Law. In different stages of intermediary activities, the phenomenon of "jumping orders" appears in the initial entrustment stage, in which the author thinks that the principal should enjoy the right of arbitrary dissolution. The premise of the use of this right is that the trustor cannot exercise it maliciously, a reasonable "jump order" should be allowed, and a reasonable "jump order" is a situation in which the trustor legally uses the right of arbitrary discharge. What we should regulate is malicious "jump order" behavior. Only by allowing reasonable "jump order" and regulating malicious "jump order" can we urge the real estate intermediary market to conduct healthy competition.
【學位授予單位】：華南理工大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 石永林;城市化與可持續(xù)發(fā)展[J];商業(yè)研究;2003年11期

2 張寧;;房屋買賣居間合同中規(guī)避“跳單”條款的效力和“跳單”行為的認定[J];法律適用;2010年08期

3 周峰;李興;;房屋買賣居間合同糾紛中“跳中介”現(xiàn)象的法律問題研究——以居間合同的信息匹配屬性與復合型構(gòu)造為視角展開[J];法律適用;2011年10期

4 張漢華;陳青;;論“依理斷案”在司法實踐中的運用——房屋居間合同糾紛探究[J];法治論壇;2011年01期

5 李金升;;最高人民法院指導性案例對房產(chǎn)中介公司的現(xiàn)實影響[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2012年11期

6 李健飛;美國房地產(chǎn)信托基金研究及對我國的啟示[J];國際金融研究;2005年01期

7 于立;馮博;;最高人民法院首個指導性案例的法律經(jīng)濟學分析——“跳單案”案例研究[J];財經(jīng)問題研究;2012年09期

8 湯文平;;從“跳單”違約到居間報酬——“指導案例1號”評釋[J];法學家;2012年06期

9 廖俊平;;居間或委托——房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀行為模式再探討[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2012年15期

10 張桂玲;;公租房房地產(chǎn)信托投資基金融資模式構(gòu)建[J];對外經(jīng)貿(mào);2012年04期

本文編號：1515379