Jumping orders "refers to the act of an intermediary providing customers with the opportunity to sign a contract, and customers bypass the intermediary after obtaining the other party's transaction information, directly entering into a transaction and avoiding paying intermediary fees. In one case, the real estate intermediary stated that the buyer "skipped the order" and demanded compensation for breach of contract, while the buyer believed that they should not be held responsible. Recently, the People's Court of Lingcheng District, Dezhou City, Shandong Province, concluded the case and ruled against the plaintiff A Intermediary Company's request for Wang to pay 25500 yuan. On April 25, 2020, Wang expressed his intention to purchase a house at A Intermediary Company. The salesperson of A Intermediary Company requested Wang to sign a confirmation letter before viewing the house. After both parties signed the confirmation letter, A Intermediary Company led the viewing and charged 850000 yuan for the involved house. Wang left due to the high housing price and continued to look at the house he needed. Two days later, Wang found the property listed for sale at B Intermediary Company, which was asking for 810000 yuan. On the same day, under the intermediary service of B intermediary company, Wang signed a house purchase and sale contract with the original property owner of the house, and purchased the house for 810000 yuan. After delivery, both parties processed the property change registration procedures. During this period, Wang paid a total of 11000 yuan in intermediary fees to B intermediary company. A intermediary company believes that its staff led Wang to have a look at the house and signed a confirmation letter. Wang signed a house purchase and sale contract with the landlord through other channels and transferred the property rights, which was a "jump order" behavior. He requested the court to order defendant Wang Jia to pay a penalty of 25500 yuan for breach of contract. The court also found that plaintiff A's intermediary company and outsider B's intermediary company are both companies engaged in real estate intermediary and real estate information consulting services. The original property owner of the property in question wanted to sell the property, and since March 2020, the property information has been listed for sale at multiple real estate intermediary companies such as A and B. After the trial, the court held that based on the content of the "Confirmation Letter for House Purchase (Lease) Customer Viewing" signed between plaintiff A company and defendant Wang, it can be determined that the confirmation letter belongs to the nature of an intermediary contract. If the party providing the format clause exempts it from its liability, increases the other party's liability, or excludes the other party's main rights, the clause shall be invalid. In this case, in Article 4 of the confirmation letter signed by the plaintiff and defendant, the second situation of the principal's liability for breach of contract stipulates that "if the principal (including related parties) enters into a transaction with the seller/lessor privately or through other means (third parties) during the commission period, the principal shall pay a penalty of 3% of the quoted price of the property in this agreement to the trustee". According to the agreement in this clause, it means that after the plaintiff takes the defendant to view the house, regardless of whether the plaintiff's quotation is on the high side or the quality of service, if the defendant chooses to buy a house, they must reach a transaction through the plaintiff, otherwise it constitutes a breach of contract. This clause is a standard clause, which clearly limits the defendant's right to choose and objectively increases the defendant's responsibility. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to prove that the defendant had fully explained and informed the clause when signing the confirmation letter with them. Therefore, it can be determined that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the clause should be invalid. Regarding whether the defendant in this case constitutes a "skip order" breach of contract. The key to measuring whether the defendant has "skipped the order" behavior is whether the defendant has utilized it