Is it true that you charge 15,000 yuan just for showing the house a few times?

This article is reprinted from Xinmin Evening News

Just a few house viewings and being charged 15,000 yuan?

A citizen’s earnest money was “illegally withheld,” and professionals warn to avoid vague language when signing earnest money agreements

In the “Real Estate Brokerage Agreement,” there is no signature from the seller, only Ms. Wu’s signature

Receipt for Ms. Wu’s earnest money payment. All images in this edition are provided by the interviewee

Paying 50,000 yuan as earnest money to buy a house, but ultimately deciding not to purchase, yet the agent forcibly deducted 30% under the guise of “viewing services.” Recently, Ms. Wu sought help from “Xinmin Bang Nong Mang,” sharing her experience with Jingrui Real Estate: in the “Real Estate Brokerage Agreement,” only the buyer signed, and the transaction was never finalized. The agent not only refused to refund the full earnest money but also, afterward, claimed a “labor cost” and “illegally withheld” 15,000 yuan from the 50,000 yuan. Legal professionals clarified in an investigation that the core compensation for agents should be based on facilitating the transaction; providing basic services like house viewings alone, while unilaterally setting high deduction fees, lacks legal basis.

Viewing fees were never agreed upon

Ms. Wu told reporters that a month ago, she viewed a house through Jingrui Real Estate, planning to buy a second-hand property in Gucun, Baoshan. On January 5, she transferred 50,000 yuan to Jingrui Real Estate, which was the earnest money for a property at No. 777 Jutai Road, Baoshan District (hereafter “Property A”). On the same day, she signed a “Real Estate Brokerage Agreement” with Shanghai Jingrui Real Estate Brokerage Co., Ltd. According to the terms, if the seller of Property A signs the “House Sale Contract,” the earnest money would convert into a deposit, but there was no mention of whether viewing fees would be deducted from the earnest money. Notably, only Ms. Wu signed the “House Sale Contract” and “Real Estate Brokerage Agreement” for Property A; the seller did not sign.

Ms. Wu explained that initially, she only viewed the house via video. On January 7, her agent took her to see the property at Jutai Road, No. 777 in person. “For this house, after considering the price, my husband and I weren’t particularly satisfied, and we planned to look at other options.” She revealed that on the same day, another agency showed her a different house near Gucun Park (hereafter “Property B”). “After viewing, I recommended Property B to Jingrui Real Estate and asked for a viewing. That day, two agencies took me to see Property B separately.” Ms. Wu emphasized that the viewing by Jingrui was arranged afterward, and she provided the information for Property B herself; it was not part of Jingrui’s planned schedule.

Refund request was refused

After careful consideration, Ms. Wu and her husband decided to purchase Property B and signed with another agency.

On January 20, Ms. Wu requested Jingrui Real Estate to refund the full 50,000 yuan earnest money, arguing that the transaction for Property A was not completed, and since only her signature appeared on the brokerage agreement, it should be considered “invalid.” However, Jingrui refused immediately. On January 21, after Ms. Wu filed a complaint, the local urban management department intervened. During the mediation meeting, the two sides could not agree on “how much to refund.” A staff member from Baoshan District Urban Management Law Enforcement Bureau told reporters that this was a “contract dispute,” which is not within their enforcement scope, only mediation could be organized.

The reporter also contacted a responsible person at Jingrui Real Estate for verification. The person insisted that, although the transaction for Property A was not completed, the agent provided viewing services, so only part of the refund was possible. He also claimed that Ms. Wu ultimately signed with another agency for Property B, suspected of “jumping orders.”

Regarding Jingrui’s refusal to refund the full amount, Ms. Wu questioned that, according to industry practice, before a deal is finalized, prospective buyers should not be required to pay for routine viewing, consultation, or matching services. “The 50,000 yuan earnest money was only for Property A, supported by receipts and contracts, and unrelated to Property B. If Jingrui believes I engaged in ‘jumping orders,’ they should file a separate lawsuit; they cannot bundle the two issues together for resolution.”

Later, Ms. Wu reported that her full refund request was still denied, and Jingrui only agreed to return 35,000 yuan. “Viewing a few houses and being charged 15,000 yuan? That’s just too harsh!”

Transaction not finalized, funds cannot be withheld

The reporter consulted legal professionals about this matter. Ma Xiao, a lawyer at Shangshi Law Firm in Shanghai, stated that the 50,000 yuan “earnest money” is not a legally defined concept but a prepayment of transaction intent. Article 586 of the Civil Code states that a deposit must be explicitly agreed upon in writing; otherwise, the penalty provisions do not apply. Since Ms. Wu’s earnest money was not designated as a deposit, it cannot be treated as such.

Ma Xiao pointed out that deposits are common as prepayments for contract performance in various sales agreements. If the contract does not specify the purpose or refund conditions, or if the terms are unclear, the transaction should be refunded based on industry practice and fairness. According to Articles 961–966 of the Civil Code, intermediary fees are contingent on the successful conclusion of a contract. If the agent only provides viewing services without facilitating the transaction, they are not entitled to high commissions; moreover, fees for viewing services that are not pre-agreed cannot be claimed unilaterally afterward. The earnest money, as a “sincerity deposit/prepayment,” is not a deposit, and if the transaction is not completed, the agent must refund it in full. Jingrui has no right to unilaterally set deduction items or amounts afterward. Even if the agent claims certain necessary costs, they should be reasonably based on actual costs (such as transportation and labor) according to Article 964 of the Civil Code, not on “high withholding.”

Ma Xiao emphasized that a unilateral signed brokerage agreement lacks legal binding force. Based on current information, Property B was listed by multiple agencies, and Jingrui only provided viewing services without offering exclusive information or substantive bargaining. “If the client did not utilize Jingrui’s exclusive information or core services and chose another agency, that is a legitimate market choice and does not constitute ‘jumping orders.’”

Ma Xiao reminded that when signing earnest money or deposit agreements, it is crucial to clarify refund conditions, conversion rules, and breach responsibilities to avoid vague language. Also, when transferring funds, include notes such as “earnest money (full refund if not transacted)” or “deposit (not a deposit, full refund if not fulfilled)” and keep proof of transfer. Lastly, beware of agents converting “earnest money/deposit” into “deposit” in disguise; such conversion must be explicitly written, or the penalty provisions of the deposit do not apply.

Will Ms. Wu’s rights be protected? “Xinmin Bang Nong Mang” will continue to follow this case.

Staff Reporter Xia Yun