Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:03:11.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chinese ‘Case Law’ in Comparative Law Studies: Illusions and Complexities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2019

Qiao LIU
Qiao LIU*
Affiliation:
University of Queensland, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chinese court cases have attained increasing importance in recent studies of Chinese law, but remain insufficiently understood. In this article, I demonstrate why Chinese court cases should be given more weighty consideration in comparative studies involving Chinese law as a comparator, and how such cases, particularly ‘Guiding Cases’ and ‘Gazette Cases’ (which are published in the official Gazette of the Supreme People's Court), should be properly dealt with and assessed in view of the complexity of the court case system in China.

Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 14 , Supplement S1 , October 2019 , pp. S97 - S117
Copyright
Copyright © National University of Singapore, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Associate Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland; Adjunct Professor, School of Law, Xi'an Jiaotong University; Visiting Professor, School of Law, Xiamen University. An earlier draft of this article was presented at the conference on ‘The State of Comparative Law in Asia’ on 27 September 2017 and is supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Early-Career Researcher Award (DE150100425). I am grateful to the participants and organizers of the conference, and the editors of the Asian Journal of Comparative Law for their support and comments.

References

1. See eg Chen, Albert, An Introduction to the Legal System of the People's Republic of China (4th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths 2011) 123, 166–67Google Scholar.

2. See eg Fan Yu, ‘Xin falü xianshi zhuyi de boxing yu dangdai zhongguo faxue fansi (新法律现实主义的勃兴与当代中国法学反思) [The Rise of New Legal Realism and Reflections on Contemporary Legal Research in China]’ [2006] No 4 Zhongguo Faxue (中国法学) [China Legal Science] 38, 46–48.

3. Mr Hu Kangsheng, Deputy Director of the Legislative Committee of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), for example, stated in his explanatory speech to the enactment of the 1999 Contract Law that judicial interpretations implemented for over a decade and tested foreign experiences in dealing with new issues arising in China's judicial practice should be considered for adoption: Civil Law Office of the NPCSC Legal Work Commission (ed), Zhonghua renmin gongheguo hetongfa lifa ziliaoxuan (中华人民共和国合同法立法资料选) [Selected Legislative Materials on the Contract Law of the PRC] (Falü chuban she (法律出版社) [Law Press] 1999) 4. Also, judges’ experiences in deciding cases may be given greater importance in untrodden areas of law, such as ‘liability for fault in contract negotiation’ (also known as ‘culpa in contrahendo’): ibid 138–39, 183–86; areas in which judges have developed expertise or knowledge (see eg specific provisions on hire purchase contracts in Ch 14 of the Chinese Contract Law (CCL), which drew upon Zuigao renmin fayuan yingfa guanyu shenli rongzi zulin hetong jiufeng anjian ruogan wenti de guiding de tongzhi (最高人民法院印发《关于审理融资租赁合同纠纷案件若干问题的规定》的通知) [SPC Notice on the Issuance of ‘Provisions on Certain Issues Concerning the Trial of Hire Purchase Contract Disputes’] (SPC 法发 [1996]19号, approved by the SPCJC, promulgated, and effective as of 27 May 1996), repealed by SPC 法释[2014]3号, effective from 1 March 2014; and where judicial statistics are available (for example, it was suggested that formal requirements on contracting should be relaxed given that around thirty-five per cent of contract cases decided by the People's Courts involved oral contracts).

4. Freund, O Kahn, ‘On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law’ (1974) 37 Modern Law Review 1, 8, 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Matheson, John H, ‘Convergence, Culture and Contract Law in China’ (2006) 15 Minnesota Journal of International Law 329, 334Google Scholar.

6. See eg Deng, Zhenglai, ‘Zhongguo faxue xiang hechu qu (zhong) – jiangou “zhonguo falü lixiang tujing” shidai de lungang (中国法学向何处去(中) – 建构 “中国法律理想图景”时代的论纲) [Jurisprudence of China: Where to go? (II) – Research Sketch of Building an Era of China's Legal Ambition Prospect]’ (2005) 23(1) Zhengfa Luntan (政法论坛) [Tribune of Political Science and Law] 25, 37–41Google Scholar (Chinese legal research paid little attention to consumers’ vulnerability to widespread counterfeit goods particularly food and medicine). See also Gu Peidong, ‘Yelun zhongguo faxue xiang hechu qu (也论中国法学向何处去) [Another View on Where Chinese Legal Science is Heading]’ [2009] No 1 Zhongguo Faxue (中国法学) [China Legal Science] 5, 8.

7. See eg Waddams, Stephen, ‘The Authority of Treatises in English law (1800–1936)’ in Godfrey, Mark (ed), Law and Authority in British Legal History, 1200–1900 (CUP 2016) 274–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Pound, Roscoe, ‘Comparative Law and History as Bases for Chinese Law’ (1948) 61 Harvard Law Review 749, 759CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Lubman, Stanley B, Bird in a Cage: Legal Reform in China after Mao (Stanford University Press 2000) 35–36Google Scholar. See also Lubman, Stanley, ‘Studying Contemporary Chinese Law: Limits, Possibilities and Strategy’ (1991) 39 American Journal Comparative Law 293, 330–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Halpérin, Jean-Louis, ‘Law in Books and Law in Action: The Problem of Legal Change’ (2011) 64 Maine Law Review 45, 65–68Google Scholar.

11. Valcke, Catherine, ‘Reflections on Comparative Law Methodology – Getting Inside Contract Law’ in Adams, Maurice and Bomhoff, Jacco (eds), Practice and Theory in Comparative Law (CUP 2012) 22, 25, 29, 34–37, 42–43Google Scholar.

12. ibid 28–29.

13. ibid 31.

14. Chen, Jianfu, Chinese Law: Context and Transformation (Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 2, 694CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. See eg Li, Victor H, Law Without Lawyers: A Comparative View of Law in China and the United States (Westview Press 1978) 3–4Google Scholar.

16. Clarke, Donald C, ‘Puzzling Observations in Chinese Law: When is a Riddle Just a Mistake?’ in Hsu, C Stephen (ed), Understanding China's Legal System: Essays in Honor of Jerome A Cohen (NYU Press 2003) 93, 102–103Google Scholar. cf generally with Collins, Hugh, Regulating Contracts (OUP 1999)Google Scholar.

17. cf Hondius, Ewould and Grigoleit, Christoph (eds), Unexpected Circumstances in European Contract Law (CUP 2014) 11Google Scholar. See also Pattison, Patricia and Herron, Daniel, ‘Mountains are High and Emperor is Far Away: Sanctity of Contract in China’ (2003) 40(3) American Business Law Journal 459, 462–63Google Scholar.

18. cf O'Brien, Roderick, ‘Comparative Law and China's Socialist Legal System’ [2014] Journal of South African Law 130, 139Google Scholar.

19. Berman, Harold J, ‘Soviet Perspectives on Chinese Law’ in Cohen, Jerome Alan (ed), Contemporary Chinese Law: Research Problems and Perspectives (Harvard University Press 1970) 313, 316–17Google Scholar.

20. Lubman, Stanley, ‘Studying Contemporary Chinese Law: Limits, Possibilities and Strategy’ (1991) 39(2) American Journal of Comparative Law 293, 294, 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Zweigert, Konrad and Kötz, Hein, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Weir, Tony tr, 3rd edn, OUP 1998) 21–22Google Scholar.

22. Farnsworth, E Allan, ‘Comparative Contract Law’ in Reimann, Mathias and Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (OUP 2006) 904Google Scholar.

23. Balganesh, Shyamkrishna, ‘The Constraint of Legal Doctrine’ (2015) 163(7) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1843, 1845, 1847–50, 1856–57Google Scholar. For the effect of legal doctrine in shaping (mis)perceptions about the law of contract, see Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess, ‘Intuitive Formalism in Contract’ (2015) 163(7) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2109, 2131, 2135Google Scholar. See also Pound, Roscoe, ‘Mechanical Jurisprudence’ (1908) 8 Columbia Law Review 605CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. See eg Gu, Weixia, ‘The Judiciary in Economic and Political Transformation: Quo Vadis Chinese Courts?’ (2013) 1(2) Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 303, 325–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on the importance of judges’ administrative ranks to their decision-making); Chng, Mavis and Dowdle, Michael W, ‘The Chinese Debate about the Adjudication Committee: Implications for What “Judicial Independence” Means in the Context of China’ (2014) 2 Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 233, 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on the decisions of adjudicative committees, which are usually accorded with the greatest authority).

25. Nelken, David, ‘Law in Action or Living Law? Back to the Beginning in Sociology of Law’ (1984) 4 Legal Studies 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the latter type of study, an empirical investigation focusing on non-legal factors is often required: Macaulay, Stewart, ‘The New versus the Old Legal Realism: “Things Ain't What They Used to Be”’ [2005] Wisconsin Law Review 365, 387–88, 390, 395–96Google Scholar.

26. Llewellyn, Karl N, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals (Little, Brown & Co 1960) 5Google Scholar. See also Twining, William, Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement (Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1973) 225Google Scholar.

27. Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu quanmian shenhua renmin fayuan gaige de yijian – renmin fayuan disige wunian gaige gangyao (2014–2018) (最高人民法院关于全面深化人民法院改革的意见–人民法院第四个五年改革纲要 (2014–2018)) [Opinions Concerning Comprehensive Deepening of Reform on People's Courts: the Fourth Five-Year Outline Plan for Reform (2014-2018)] (SPC 法发[2015]3号, issued and effective as of 4 February 2015), pt 5.

28. Renmin fayuan wunian gaige gangyao (人民法院五年改革纲要) [Five-Year Outline Plan for Reform of the People's Courts] (SPC 法发[1999]28号, issued on 20 October 1999), art 13, in Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Gongbao (最高人民法院公报) [GSPC], 1999, Issue 6, 185–90 <http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/2557d0b4c78959398ac5df959537f9.html> accessed 10 December 2018.

29. Mingshan Zhu, Guanyu ‘Renmin fayuan wunian gaige gangyao’ de shuoming (关于《人民法院五年改革纲要》的说明) [Official Explanatory Notes to Five-Year Outline Plan for Reform], in Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Gongbao (最高人民法院公报) [GSPC] (n 28) 190–96.

30. Zuigao renmin fayuan caipan wenshu gongbu guanli banfa (最高人民法院裁判文书公布管理办法) [SPC Regulatory Measures on the Release of Judgments] (SPC 法办发[2000]4号, issued and effective as of 15 June 2000), art 4(5)–(6).

31. Fourth Five-Year Outline Plan (n 27), art 34.

32. Fourth Five-Year Outline Plan (n 27), art 39.

33. Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu renmin fayuan zai hulianwang gongbu caipan wenshu de guiding (最高人民法院关于人民法院在互联网公布裁判文书的规定) [SPC Provisions on the Release of Judgments on the Internet by People's Courts] (SPC 法释[2016]19号, approved by the SPCJC on 25 July 2016, promulgated on 29 August 2016, effective from 1 October 2016), art 2.

34. ibid, arts 4 and 7. In practice, not all judgments are released on the website; it is estimated that about seventy per cent of all judgments delivered since the launch of the website are released there.

35. ibid, art 15.

36. SPC Regulatory Measures (n 30), art 2.

37. All Gazette Cases are available at the official website of the GSPC at <http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/>.

38. Zuo, Weimin and Chen, Mingguo (eds), Zhongguo tese anli zhidao zhidu yanjiu (中国特色案例指导制度研究) [Studies on the Guiding Case System with Chinese Characteristics] (Peking University Press 2014) 50Google Scholar. Two other publications, the Applied Law Institute of the SPC (ed), Renmin fayuan anli xuan (人民法院案例选) [Selected Cases of People's Courts] (People's Court Press, various years), and the National Judges College and the School of Law of Renmin University of China (eds), Zhongguo shenpan anli yaolan (中国审判案例要览) [Collection of Cases in China] (Renmin University Press, various years), are also regarded as influential. Other significant publications include the People's Court Daily newspaper and the Case Guidance journal edited by the Sichuan HPC.

39. Editorial Department, ‘Chuban shuoming (出版说明) [Introductory Note]’ in Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zuigao renmin fayuan gongbao quanji (中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报全集) [Complete Collection of the Gazette of the SPC of the PRC] (People's Court Press 1995), cited in Chen (n 1) 167. See also Yang Xiao, ‘Quanmian tuijin renmin fayuan de gexiang gongzuo wei gaige, fazhan, wending tigong youli de sifa baozhang (全面推进人民法院的各项工作为改革、发展、稳定提供有力的司法保障) [Comprehensive Promotion of Various Aspects of the Work of the People's Courts so as to Provide Effective Legal Guarantees for Reform, Development, and Stability]’ (Speech to the National Conference of Presidents of Higher People's Courts, 2 December 1998), GSPC, 1999, Issue 1, 3 <http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/ad6ed9e6304eaa96b31c2057bb034f.html> accessed 10 December 2018.

40. Guanyu guifan shangxiaji renmin fayuan shenpan yewu guanxi de ruogan yijian (关于规范上下级人民法院审判业务关系的若干意见) [Several Opinions on Regulating the Trial Work Relations between the People's Courts at Different Levels] (SPC 法发[2010]61号, issued and effective as of 28 December 2010), art 8.

41. Liu, Nanping, ‘“Legal Precedent” with Chinese Characteristics: Published Cases in the Gazette of the Supreme People's Court’ (1991) 5(1) Journal of Chinese Law 107Google Scholar.

42. Xiaoming Xi and the Second Civil Court of the SPC (eds), Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu maimai hetong sifa jieshi lijie yu shiyong (最高人民法院关于买卖合同司法解释理解与适用) [Understanding and Applying SPC Interpretations on Sales Contracts: Texts, Interpretations, Reasons and Cases] (People's Court Press 2012) 4.

43. When one reads Chinese court judgments, it is not uncommon for the paragraph laying out the court's reasoning in an influential case (including but not limited to Gazette Cases) to be directly replicated or adapted with some minor differences in subsequent cases with similar facts decided by other courts (particularly those on a lower level in the hierarchy than the court deciding the prior case).

44. Mingguo Chen and Weimin Zuo, ‘Zhidao xinganli de yingyong zhangai ji kefu—sichuan fayuan anli yingyong shidian gongzuo de chubufenxi (指导性案例的应用障碍及克服—四川法院案例应用试点工作的初步分析) [Obstacles in the Application of Guiding Cases and Overcoming Them: A Preliminary Analysis of Case Application in Sichuan Courts]’ [2012] No 5 Falü Shiyong (法律适用) [Journal of Law Application] 67, 69–70.

45. Guangzhong Chen and Zhengquan Xie, ‘Guanyu woguo jianli panli zhidu de sikao (关于我国建立判例制度问题的思考) [Reflections on the Question of Establishing a Judicial Precedent System in Our Country]’ [1989] No 2 Zhongguo Faxue (中国法学) [China Legal Science] 86, 90.

46. Li yidong deng yu huang muxing yiban jiekuan hetong jiufen shengqing zaishenan (李艺东等与黄木兴一般借款合同纠纷申请再审案) [Li Yidong et al v Huang Muxing] (2014) 民申字第 441 号 (SPC, 4 June 2014).

47. Wu guojun su chen xiaofu, wang kexiang ji deqingxian zhongjian fangdichan kaifa youxian gongsi minjian jiedai, danbao hetong jiufen an (吴国军诉陈晓富、王克祥及德清县中建房地产开发有限公司民间借贷、担保合同纠纷案) [Wu Guojun v Chen Xiaofu] (Huzhou IPC, Appellate Decision, 2 August 2010), GSPC, 2011, Issue 11.

48. ibid.

49. ibid.

50. Chen (n 1) 167, citing Bu Dong, Sifa jieshi lun (司法解释论) [Judicial Interpretation] (Chinese University of Political Science and Law Press 1999) 356–64. See also Chen and Zuo (n 44) 68 (in an experimental survey, the types of cases referred to by the selected IPCs and BPCs in Sichuan Province in trials conducted in a certain period were as follows: prior decisions made by the same court (45.16%); HPC cases (22.58%); SPC cases (14.52%)). Note that a HPC may provide guidance to lower courts within the same hierarchy in the province or autonomous prefecture by issuing ‘Referential Cases’ (cankaoxing anli): see Several Opinions on Regulating the Trial Work Relations between the People's Courts at Different Levels (n 40), art 9.

51. Fujian sheng zhongfu shiye gufen youxian gongsi deng yu zhongguo gongshang yinhang fuzhou shi min dou zhihang jiekuan danbao jiufen an (福建省中福实业股份有限公司等与中国工商银行福州市闽都支行借款担保纠纷案) [Fujian Zhongfu Co Ltd v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Fuzhou Mindu Branch] (2000) 经终字第186号 (SPC, 17 Nov 2001) (a contract by which the board of directors of a company created a security interest in company assets in favour of shareholders was held invalid by the SPC based on art 60(3) of the then-Company Law). The decision put RMB 270 billion worth of bank loans in jeopardy.

52. Zhongguo jinchukou yinghang yu guangcai shiye touzi jituan youxian gongsi, sitong jituan gongsi jiekuan danbao hetong jiufen an (中国进出口银行与光彩事业投资集团有限公司、四通集团公司借款担保合同纠纷案) [China Import and Export Bank v Guangcai Investment Co Ltd] (2006) 民二终字第49号 (SPC, 15 May 2006), GSPC, 2006, Issue 7; after amendments, art 16(1)–(2) of the current Company Law subjects a security contract to strict approval procedures within the company: Zhong jiancai jituan jinchukou gongsi su beijing dadi hengtong jingmao youxian gongsi deng jinchukou daili hetong jiufen shangsu an (中建材集团进出口公司诉北京大地恒通经贸有限公司等进出口代理合同纠纷上诉案) [China National Building Materials Import & Export Group Co v Beijing Lang & Overseas Trading Co Ltd] (2011) (Beijing HPC, 22 Sept 2009), GSPC, 2011, Issue 2; Zhaoshang yinhang gufen youxian gongsi dayuan donggang zhihang yu dalian zhengbang futu liao gufen youxian gongsi den jiekuan hetong jiufen an (招商银行股份有限公司大远东港支行与大连振邦氟涂料股份有限公司等借款合同纠纷案) [Dalian Donggang Sub-Branch of China Merchants Bank Co Ltd v Dalian Zebon Fluorocarbon Paint Stock Co Ltd], (2012) 民提字第 156号 (SPC, 22 April 2014), GSPC, 2015, Issue 2.

53. Chen and Zuo (n 44) 54 (reporting, based on survey findings, that this was the case in 86% of all Gazette Cases, and only 11% of Gazette Cases dealt with new issues not covered by existing law).

54. Wang Qin, ‘Lun woguo anli zhidao zhidu de goujian he shiyong fangfa: yi zuigao renmin fayuan gongbao wei fenxi yangben (论我国案例指导制度的构建和适用方法—以《最高人民法院公报》为分析样本) [On the Establishment and Methods of Application of the Chinese Guiding Cases System — Taking the SPC Gazette as a Sample]’ [2007] No 4 Falü Fangfa yu Falü Siwei (法律方法与法律思维) [Legal Methodology and Legal Thinking] 205, 217.

55. Zhang lianqi, zhang guoli su zhang xuezhen sunhai peichang jiufen an (张连起、张国莉诉张学珍损害赔偿纠纷案) [Zhang Lianqi and Zhang Guoli v Zhang Xuezhen] (1989) (Tanggu District People's Court, 24 December 1988), GSPC, 1989, Issue 1.

56. See Zuigao renmin fayuan sifa zeren zhi shishi yijian (shixing) (最高人民法院司法责任制实施意见(试行)) [SPC Implementation Opinions (Provisional) on the Judicial Responsibility System] (not publicly released, effective from 1 August 2017), arts 39, 40.

57. Guanyu anli zhidao gongzuo de guiding (关于案例指导工作的规定) [Provisions on Case Guidance Work] (法发[2010] 51号). This is supplemented by a subsequently promulgated Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu anli zhidao gongzuo de guiding shishi xize (《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》实施细则) [Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Case Guidance] (法[2015]130号, issued and effective as of 13 May 2015). The power to issue Guiding Cases is also vested in the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security, but it is doubtful that Guiding Cases issued by those two institutions will be as influential.

58. See eg Yu, Ping and Gurgel, Seth, ‘Stare Decisis in China? The Newly Enacted Guiding Case System’ in Wan, Marco (ed), Reading the Legal Case: Cross-Currents between Law and the Humanities (Routledge 2012) 142–58Google Scholar; Jia, Mark, ‘Chinese Common Law? Guiding Cases and Judicial Reform’ (2016) 129(8) Harvard Law Review 2213Google Scholar; Deng, Jingting, Zhidaoxing anli de bijiao yu shizheng (指导性案例的比较与实证) [Comparative and Empirical Studies on Guiding Cases] (Renmin University of China Press 2015)Google Scholar; Yulin Fu, ‘Jianli panlizhidu de liangge jichuxing wenti–yi minshi sifa de jishu wei shijiao (建立判例制度的两个基础性问题–以民事司法的技术为视角) [Two Basic Issues on the Establishment of a Precedent System – From the Perspective of Civil Judicial Techniques]’ [2009] No 1 Huadong Zhengfa Daxue Xuebao (华东政法大学学报) [Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law] 98; Shichun Li, ‘Anli zhidao zhidu de lingyitiao silu–sifa nengdong zhuyi zai zhongguo de youxian shiyong (案例指导制度的另一条思路司法能动主义在中国的有限适用) [An Alternative Look at the Guiding Cases System – The Limited Application of Judicial Activism in China]’ [2009] No 6 Faxue (法学) [Law Science] 59.

59. See generally Guo Feng, ‘Zhongguo fayuan zhidaoxing anli de bianxuan yu shiyong (中国法院指导性案例的编选与适用) [The Compilation and Application of China's Guiding Cases]’ (Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, 27 January 2017) <http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/18-guo-feng> accessed 10 December 2018. The Guiding Cases selected are cases that convey good social values but are not necessarily cases that are legally significant, see particularly ibid, Appendix (Q&A).

60. It is not clear what ‘application of law’ refers to given that a Guiding Case has a ‘Basic Facts’ section but not one entitled ‘application of law’. There is however a ‘relevant legislative provisions’ section.

61. This provision does not have a restricting effect and a judge has a duty to find and follow an applicable Guiding Case: Guo (n 59).

62. Guo (n 59); Hu, Yunteng and SPC Guiding Case Office (eds), Zuigao renmin fayuan zhidaoxing anli canzhao yu shiyong (最高人民法院指导性案例参照与适用) [Following and Applying SPC Guiding Cases] (People's Court Press 2012) 26–27Google Scholar.

63. Given that the SPC explicitly stipulates that a Guiding Case should not be cited as a legal basis, is it possible to say that such a failure amounts to an ‘erroneous application of law’ within the meaning of Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law (2012)? An answer in the negative was given by Judge Guo Feng (n 59) Appendix (Q&A).

64. Shanghai zhongyuan wuye guwen youxian gongsi su tao dehua jujian hetong jiufenan (上海中原物业顾问有限公司诉陶德华居间合同纠纷案) [Shanghai Centaline Real Estate Consultants Co Ltd v Tao Dehua] (2009) 沪二中民二(民)终字第1508 号 (Shanghai No 2 IPC, 4 September 2009), Guiding Case No 1, issued by the SPCJC on 20 December 2011), GSPC, 2012, Issue 2 <www.court.gov.cn/shenpan-xiangqing-4214.html> accessed 10 December 2018.

65. These facts are taken from the appellate judgment. The first instance judgment (2009) 虹民三(民)初字第912号 (Shanghai Hongkou District People's Court, 23 June 2009) could not be found.

66. Shanghai Centaline Real Estate Consultants Co Ltd v Tao Dehua (n 64).

67. Jingting Deng (n 58). A ‘jumping order’ refers roughly to a situation where a party who has contracted with an intermediary to purchase or sell a property enters into a contract with the property seller or purchaser without the notice or consent of the intermediary.

68. There are only three cases decided by a HPC and in two of them, the issue in Guiding Case No 1 was not raised. The other HPC decision is discussed later in this article.

69. It is unfortunate that a Guiding Case does not contain a section setting out clearly the legal issue(s) to be resolved. The IPC identified in its judgment three points of controversy: (i) the classification of the contract in question (the contract was classified as a contract of intermediation as defined under art 424 of the CCL; (ii) the legal validity and enforceability of Clause 2.4 (held to be not invalid under art 40 of the CCL); and (iii) whether Tao breached the contract with Centaline.

70. An inconsistency in this respect between the ‘Basic Facts’ and the ‘Essential Points’ should be noted. According to the former, the contractual clause provides that the purchaser shall be liable to pay weiyue jin upon the impugned conduct, whereas the first sentence of the latter suggests that the contract simply prohibits such conduct.

71. See also Guiding Case Office of the SPC (drafted by Liu Jing), ‘Zhidao anli yihao “shanghai zhongyuan wuye guwen youxian gongsi su tao dehua jujian hetong jiufen an” de lijie yu canzhao (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》的理解与参照) [Understanding and Following Guiding Case No 1, People's Judicature (Application)]’ [2012] No 7 Renmin Sifa – Yingyong (人民司法 – 应用) [People's Judicature – Application] 31.

72. See eg Sanming shi meilie qu chenggong fangdichan jingji youxian gongsi yu chen hong jujian hetong jiufen yishen mingshi panjue shu (三明市梅列区诚功房地产经纪有限公司与陈鸿居间合同纠纷一审民事判决书) [Chenggong Real Estate Agency Co Ltd v Chen Hong] (2014) 梅民初字第 3057 号 (Meilie District People's Court, 29 January 2015).

73. Jinan zhonghe fangdichan jingji youxian gongsi yu liuzhen zujian hetong jiufen shangsuan (济南中合房地产经纪有限公司与刘珍居间合同纠纷上诉案) [Jinan Zhonghe Real Estate Agency Co Ltd v Liu Zhen], (2017) 鲁01民终1747号 (Shandong Jinan IPC, 3 May 2017) (the Court then applied the utilization of information test after holding the contractual clause to be invalid). See also Wuhan jiahong ju fangdichan guwen youxian hongsi su luo xianjun jujian hetong jiufen an (武汉嘉鸿居房地产顾问有限公司诉罗贤军居间合同纠纷案) [Wuhan Jiahong Real Estate Consultancy Co Ltd v Luo Xianjun] (2015) 鄂洪山和民商初字第00473号 (Wuhan Hongshan District People's Court, 24 July 2017).

74. See eg Xian mo fangchan xingxi zixun youxian gongsi yu lu momo jujian hetong jiufen an (西安某房产信息咨询有限公司与卢某某居间合同纠纷案) [A Xi'an Property Information Consultancy Co Ltd v Lu] (2014) 西中民一终字第 00498号 (Shanxi Xi'an IPC, 27 June 2014).

75. The same can be said of a number of court decisions which defied the view expressed by the Guiding Case Office of the SPC (n 71) by holding that a contractual clause prohibiting a purchaser from dealing with the vendor or other intermediaries once the purchaser has attended an inspection arranged by the contracting intermediary was valid and enforceable: see Deng (n 58) 147.

76. See eg A Xi'an Property Property Information Consultancy Co Ltd v Lu (n 74).

77. Pingdu shi baishun fangwu jingyingbu yu wang jugang jujian hetong jiufen yishen mingshi panjue (平度市百顺房屋经营部与王玉刚居间合同纠纷一审民事判决) [Pingdu City Baishun Properties Operation Division v Wang Yugang] (2015) 平商初字第 2460号 (Shandong Pingdu City People's Court, 31 October 2015). The original text is ‘无论以任何条件私下成交’, which might well be understood to mean ‘strike a deal in private on any conditions’. The translation given in the main text reflects the Court's actual interpretation. In this context, ‘in private’ refers to ‘without the intermediation of the plaintiff real estate agent’.

78. See Guiding Case No 1: Shanghai Centaline v Tao Dehua (n 64).

79. ibid.

80. See the ‘Reasons of Adjudication’ section in Guiding Case No 1: Shanghai Centaline v Tao Dehua (n 64). See also Guiding Case Office of the SPC (n 71) 30. See also the original IPC judgment in Shanghai Centaline Real Estate Consultants Co Ltd v Tao Dehua (n 64) (a purchaser's ‘unfair conduct with a view to evading his contractual liability to pay commission’, ‘withholding from concluding a contract through the outflanked intermediary’, dealing with the vendor ‘in secrecy’, etc).

81. As noted earlier, standard-form clauses used in practice do not normally contain the words ‘utilize information or other facilities’. Resort to the test in many cases can be understood as an application of the principle of good faith: Deng (n 58) 151. However, the use of identical wording and formulation in these cases indicates that they have clearly been influenced by Guiding Case No 1 (n 64).

82. Yunteng Hu and SPC Guiding Case Office (n 62) 30.

83. See eg Chengdu shangdongji qiye guanli youxian gongsi yu song lijun jujian hetong jiufen zaishenan (成都上东吉企业管理有限公司与宋丽军居间合同纠纷再审案) [Chengdu Shangdongji Enterprise Management Co Ltd v Song Lijun] (2017) 川民申1707号 (Sichuan HPC, 28 June 2017) (the onus is on the plaintiff intermediary to prove that the defendant vendor had committed a ‘jumping order’ in breach of contract and the mere fact that the plaintiff was engaged later than the other intermediary and only three days before the conclusion of the sale did not show a ‘high possibility’ that the breach had occurred). cf Nanjing lianjia fangdichan jingji youxian gongsi yu wuping, zhu dandan jujian hetong jiufenan (南京链家房地产经纪有限公司与吴萍、朱丹丹居间合同纠纷案) [Nanjing Lianjia Real Estate Agency Co Ltd v Wu Ping and Zhu Dandan] (2015) 宁民终字第3770号 (Nanjing IPC, 11 September 2015) (holding the purchaser liable for buying property through another intermediary on the second day after signing the contract of intermediation with the plaintiff intermediary, failing to prove that the other intermediary had provided any services in that one-day window or that she had compared the prices and services offered by the two intermediaries).

84. As a form of ‘concrete judicial interpretation’ as opposed to the normal ‘abstract judicial interpretation’: Shen, Kui, “Democratization” of Judicial Interpretation and the Supreme Court's Political Function, (2008) 29(4) Social Sciences in China 33, 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar fn 3. See also Kui Chen, ‘How to Apply the Guiding Cases of the Supreme People's Court in Judicial Practice’ (Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, 22 April 2012) <https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/3-judge-chen> accessed 10 December 2018.

85. The SPC requires all lower courts to ‘accurately grasp the guiding spirit’ of the Guiding Cases and to understand their ‘spirit and substance’: Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu fabu diyipi zhidaoxing anli de tongzhi (最高人民法院关于发布第一批指导性案例的通知) [SPC Notice on the Issue of the First Batch of Guiding Cases], (SPC 法 [2011] 354号, issued on 20 December 2011).

86. Pingdu City Baishun Properties v Wang Yugang (n 77). The four factual points are: (i) the plaintiff intermediary provided information and service to the purchaser before the second intermediary (through which the purchaser bought the property) did; (ii) the purchaser used information provided by the plaintiff at least for the purpose of comparing prices; (iii) even the single inspection arranged by the plaintiff involved the provision of service and labour; and (iv) in practice, some purchasers did engage in malicious ‘jumping order(s)’. In my view, the last point appears to be policy-related instead of factual, and none of these points appear to distinguish the case from Guiding Case No 1. Nevertheless, it was held that the purchaser was liable to pay a reduced amount of RMB 2,000 (as opposed to the claimed commission of RMB 8,600) as weiyue jin. Note that the SPC did not consider fact no 1 to be conclusive: Yunteng Hu and SPC Guiding Case Office (n 62) 30.

87. Zelin Ou, ‘Discussing the Guiding Case System with Chinese Characteristics by First Combining Guiding Case No. 1 with Adjudication Practices’ (Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, 2 May 2012) <https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentary/4-judge-ou> accessed 10 December 2018.