[Case Summary]This case involves a service contract dispute disguised as a "consulting service contract" but in reality aimed at reselling Beijing's housing purchase quotas. In August 2022, Wang * signed a "Consulting Service Contract" with A Real Estate (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and paid a service fee of 2 million yuan, with the performance standards being receipt of the notice of housing purchase eligibility from the Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and obtaining the property ownership certificate. However, the commission later verified that the so-called "Class II Affordable Housing Quota Document" was forged. A Company only refunded 800,000 yuan and refused to return the remaining 1.2 million yuan, instead filing for arbitration to claim 1.2 million yuan in breach of contract damages. Attorney Zhao Chunxiao from Beijing Hengluo Law Firm represented Wang * in counterclaiming that the contract was labeled as a consulting service but in reality involved reselling government-subsidized housing purchase quotas, which violated real estate regulation policies and public interests and should be deemed invalid. The Beijing Arbitration Commission ruled that the contract was invalid, ordered A Company to fully refund the remaining service fee of 1.2 million yuan, and dismissed all of A Company's claims.

I. Review of the Case Facts

Many people have such misfortunes and doubts: Can the service fees for reselling housing purchase quotas be recovered? So-called "internal housing sources" and "returned housing" promise to handle housing purchase qualifications. Can the service fees of hundreds of thousands of yuan be refunded? The party concerned, Wang * *, hoped to obtain a housing purchase quota for Category II affordable housing in the Taiyanggong area of Beijing. In August 2022, he signed a "Consulting Service Contract" with A Real Estate (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and paid a total of 2 million yuan in service fees. The contract stipulated that: Wang * * would be deemed to have completed the contract only after receiving the housing purchase qualification notice from the Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Commission, successfully purchasing the house, and obtaining the property ownership certificate; the performance period was from August 30, 2022 to August 30, 2023. If A Company failed to provide the service within the time limit and Wang * * confirmed in writing that he/she gave up the purchase, A Company should refund the full amount within 5 working days.

The contract was nominally for housing purchase consultation services, but in actual communication, A Company's shareholder and supervisor, Zhao * promoted to Wang * that he could obtain a purchase quota for the vacated second-category affordable housing units, and handed over a "Second-Category Affordable Housing Quota Document" headed by the "Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development Comprehensive Approval Service Office". However, Wang * never received the "Housing Purchase Qualification Notification" from the Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. Upon verification with the 12345 hotline, the Commission confirmed that it had never issued such a document, and the stamp was fake. The so-called purchase quota did not actually exist.

After the deal fell through, Company A only refunded 800,000 yuan and refused to return the remaining 1.2 million yuan. Moreover, it preemptively initiated arbitration with the Beijing Arbitration Commission, demanding that Wang pay a 1.2 million yuan breach of contract penalty, compensate for losses, and bear the attorney's fees and arbitration costs. In a critical situation, Wang entrusted Attorney Zhao Chunxiao of Beijing Henglu Law Firm to participate in the arbitration. Attorney Zhao comprehensively reviewed the evidence, raised a counterclaim, and argued that the contract was invalid, demanding the return of the remaining 1.2 million yuan in service fees and compensation for the loss of funds during the delay in payment.

II. The focus of the case

  • Dispute over the nature of the contract: The contract is named "Consulting Services", but in reality, it involves the sale of the purchase qualification for housing from the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Commission or the second-category affordable housing quotas. The core obligation is whether to handle the specific purchase qualification.

  • Effectiveness Dispute: Whether reselling policy-based housing purchase quotas violates national real estate regulation and purchase restriction policies and damages public interests, and whether the contract should be deemed invalid.

  • Responsibility and dispute over refund: Should the service fee be fully refunded after the contract is invalidated, how should the fault be divided between the two parties, and whether there is any basis for Company A's request for a breach of contract penalty.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

Both parties' arguments and defenses:Company A claimed that the contract was signed voluntarily and was legally valid. The company had provided services such as screening housing options, arranging viewings, and coordinating refunds. Wang * breached the contract by maliciously limiting the number of housing options and refusing to view the properties when the housing prices dropped. According to the contract, "if the transaction fails due to the buyer's reasons, the service fee will not be refunded", so the company did not need to refund the money and demanded a breach of contract penalty of 1.2 million yuan. Wang * claimed that the contract was used to conceal the fact of reselling housing quotas in a legal form, and should be deemed invalid and the remaining 1.2 million yuan should be returned.

Attorney Zhao Chunxiao's legal opinion on behalf of the client:

(I) The contract is named "Consulting Services", but it is actually a purchase of housing purchase quotas. Articles 1.3 and 4.5 of the contract specify that the performance standards are "receiving the notice of housing purchase qualification from the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Commission" and "successfully purchasing a house and obtaining a property ownership certificate". The core obligation is not general consulting, but to assist Mr. Wang in obtaining specific housing purchase qualifications.

(II) Zhao * , a shareholder and supervisor of Company A, delivered the "Second-Category Economic Housing Indicator Document" on behalf of the company. The WeChat records mentioned "housing purchase indicators", "returned housing", and "evicted housing" multiple times, and the arbitration tribunal confirmed the authenticity of the WeChat records. Company A issued the "Authorized Payment Certificate" and the "Authorized Collection Certificate" authorizing Zhao * to collect and pay on behalf of the company.

(III) After Wang * verified with the Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development through 12345, the commission explicitly replied that it had never issued any documents under that name, that the responsibilities of the Comprehensive Approval Service Office did not involve the work of affordable housing, and that the so-called "purchase qualification" had no legal source because it was not stamped with the official seal.

(IV) Reselling the purchase quotas of policy-based housing in violation of the national real estate regulation and purchase restriction policies and damaging the public interest of society, the contract shall be deemed invalid and legally non-binding from the outset. Therefore, A Company's claim for breach of contract damages and attorney's fees based on the invalid contract is unfounded.

(V) To put it another way, even if the contract is valid, Company A has seriously exceeded the performance period, failed to fulfill its core obligation of providing the notice of eligibility for purchasing a house, and has already refunded 800,000 yuan. According to the contract, Company A should also refund the full amount. Attorney Zhao, on behalf of Wang * *, put forward a counterclaim: confirm that the contract is invalid, return the remaining service fee of 1.2 million yuan, pay the loss of funds occupied based on the LPR (calculated to April 20, 2026 as 146,541.37 yuan), and the arbitration fees shall be borne by Company A.

IV. Outcome of the case

The sole arbitrator of the Beijing Arbitration Commission rendered the Arbitration Award No. XXX99 (2025) Beijing Arbitration: The arbitrator determined that the "Consulting Service Contract" in question was invalid - the contract was nominally for consulting services, but the actual transaction purpose was to obtain purchase quotas for Type II affordable housing. The quota documents were verified by the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Commission and were not officially issued. The transaction violated public order, so the entire contract was invalid. The arbitrator apportioned fault: A Company, as the service provider, played a dominant role and was aware of the illegality, thus bearing the main responsibility for the fault; Wang * knew that the special internal housing sources were not obtained in good faith and also had some fault. According to Article 157 of the Civil Code, the parties shall return the property and bear responsibility for the fault in proportion to their respective degrees of fault.

Decision: Confirm that the Consulting Service Contract is invalid; A Real Estate Investment (Beijing) Co., Ltd. shall return the remaining service fee of 1.2 million yuan to Wang *; dismiss all arbitration requests of A Company; dismiss other counterclaims of Wang *; the arbitration fees shall be borne entirely by A Company, and 90% of the counterclaims shall be borne by A Company and 10% by Wang *; the decision shall be implemented within 10 days, and if it is not implemented on time, the interest on the delayed performance of the debt shall be paid at a double rate. Wang * successfully recovered the remaining amount of 1.2 million yuan.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

The purchase quotas for affordable housing and relocation housing, among other policy-based housing types, are not ordinary commodities and cannot be privately traded. Collecting high fees under the guise of "consulting service contracts", "internal housing sources", "returned housing", and "evicted housing", and promising to handle purchase qualifications often involve significant legal risks. Once it is determined that these practices violate real estate regulation policies and harm public interests, the contracts may be deemed invalid.

After the contract is invalidated, according to Article 157 of the Civil Code, the party who has obtained the property shall return the property; if it is impossible to return the property or there is no need to return it, the party shall make compensation in the form of a discount; the party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses, and all parties shall bear corresponding responsibilities if they are at fault. The invalidation of the contract does not mean that "the money cannot be recovered", but the parties should restore the original state and return the property.

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmZhao ChunxiaoThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202111351131, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Real Estate Transactions

  1. Q: Can the service fees for reselling housing purchase quotas be recovered? A: If the contract is actually for reselling government-subsidized housing quotas, which violates regulatory policies and public interests, you can claim its invalidity and demand a full refund of the paid service fees.

  2. Q: Is the "Consulting Service Contract" valid in terms of its promise to assist in obtaining a purchase eligibility? A: If the contract is used to legally conceal the actual act of reselling purchase quotas, it may be deemed to violate public order and thus be invalidated, and the agreed upon penalty for breach of contract will also lack legal basis.

  3. Q: What should I do if the other party initiates arbitration and demands breach-of-contract penalties from me? A: You can file a counter-claim in arbitration, arguing that the contract is invalid or that the other party has fundamentally breached the contract. You can request the return of the service fees and reject the other party's original claim.

  4. Q: How to get a refund after the contract is invalidated? A: According to Article 157 of the Civil Code, the acquired property should be returned, and the liability should be shared based on the fault of both parties. In principle, the paid service fees should be refunded.

  5. Q: How to prove that the purchase quota document is fake? A: You can verify it with the competent departments such as the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Commission through channels like 12345, and their official responses can prove that the document was not issued or that the stamp is fake, which can be used as key evidence.