本文選題：跳單　切入點(diǎn)：認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)　出處：《湘潭大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：在日益繁榮的房地產(chǎn)中介服務(wù)中，居間合同“跳單”現(xiàn)象越來(lái)越頻繁。但由于我國(guó)目前無(wú)法律規(guī)范具體規(guī)定跳單的認(rèn)定等相關(guān)內(nèi)容，各地法院在審查跳單糾紛案件中，未形成相對(duì)統(tǒng)一的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。直到2011年最高院指導(dǎo)案例的發(fā)布，跳單的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)才略有成形，但對(duì)此仍然存在不同觀點(diǎn)。 目前學(xué)界關(guān)于跳單認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的幾種觀點(diǎn)或過(guò)于嚴(yán)苛和狹窄，或存在邏輯瑕疵。根據(jù)德國(guó)立法和法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的觀點(diǎn)，跳單的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不應(yīng)考慮委托人的主觀惡意，從以下四個(gè)方面判斷即可：（1）居間合同成立，為跳單認(rèn)定的起點(diǎn)。（2）居間人履行了居間義務(wù)，為跳單認(rèn)定的基礎(chǔ)條件。（3）委托人存在“繞開”居間人與第三人交易的行為，為跳單認(rèn)定的重要條件。（4）居間人的居間行為與委托人最終締約具有原因性，為跳單認(rèn)定的核心要素。 反跳單條款的效力涉及到對(duì)跳單行為法律后果的判定。反跳單格式條款的有效或無(wú)效不應(yīng)簡(jiǎn)單判定，而應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)約定的具體情形來(lái)認(rèn)定。當(dāng)居間人履行了居間義務(wù)、居間人的居間行為與委托人成功締約具有原因性時(shí)，居間人享有報(bào)酬請(qǐng)求權(quán)；在居間人不存在可歸責(zé)的過(guò)錯(cuò)等情況下，不受促成締約的合同無(wú)效、可撤銷等影響。當(dāng)反跳單條款有效且委托人存在跳單行為時(shí)，居間人享有違約賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)，，不受委托人主觀態(tài)度的影響。
[Abstract]:In the increasingly prosperous real estate intermediary services, intermediary contract "jump" phenomenon more and more frequent.However, due to the fact that there is no legal norm in our country to specify the cognizance of skipping, there is no relatively uniform standard of confirmation in the examination of dispute cases of skipping by local courts.Until the release of the 2011 Supreme Court guidance case, the criteria for determining jump orders took shape slightly, but there are still different views on this.At present, there are some opinions about the criterion of jump-order recognition, which are too strict and narrow, or have logic flaws.According to the viewpoint of German legislation and law and economics, the criteria for determining jump order should not consider the subjective malice of the client. It can be judged from the following four aspects: 1) the establishment of the intermediary contract, which is the starting point for the confirmation of the jump order. 2) the intermediary person has fulfilled the intermediary obligation.The behavior of "circumventing" the transaction between the intermediary and the third party is the important condition for the confirmation of the jump order. 4) the intermediary behavior of the broker and the final contracting of the principal have the cause and are the core elements of the confirmation of the hopping order.The effectiveness of the reverse-jump clause involves the determination of the legal consequences of the skip act.The validity or invalidation of a rebound form clause should not be determined simply, but according to the agreed circumstances.When the intermediary has fulfilled the intermediary obligation, the intermediary has the right of claim for compensation when the intermediary acts have the reason for the successful conclusion of the contract with the principal, and if the intermediary does not have the fault of imputability, the contract that facilitated the conclusion of the contract is invalid,Revocable, etc.When the backjumper clause is effective and the trustor has the behavior of skipping, the intermediary has the right to claim for compensation for breach of contract, which is not affected by the principal's subjective attitude.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 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(rèn)定[J];法律適用;2010年08期

2 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(wèn)題研究——以居間合同的信息匹配屬性與復(fù)合型構(gòu)造為視角展開[J];法律適用;2011年10期

3 于立;馮博;;最高人民法院首個(gè)指導(dǎo)性案例的法律經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析——“跳單案”案例研究[J];財(cái)經(jīng)問(wèn)題研究;2012年09期

4 湯文平;;從“跳單”違約到居間報(bào)酬——“指導(dǎo)案例1號(hào)”評(píng)釋[J];法學(xué)家;2012年06期

5 毛海波;;司法對(duì)房地產(chǎn)居間糾紛案件相關(guān)困境的解決路徑[J];法治研究;2013年04期

6 隋彭生;;居間合同委托人的任意解除權(quán)及“跳單”——以最高人民法院《指導(dǎo)案例1號(hào)》為例[J];江淮論壇;2012年04期

7 湯文平;;多人居間行為共同原因性研究——從“指導(dǎo)案例1號(hào)”切入[J];政治與法律;2012年12期

8 周江洪;;“上海中原物業(yè)顧問(wèn)有限公司訴陶德華居間合同糾紛案”評(píng)釋[J];浙江社會(huì)科學(xué);2013年01期

本文編號(hào)：1726914