Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dual agency wasn't involved here. The seller had one agent and the buyer had a different agent.
Even if there were a law against dual agency, agents would figure a way around it.
Example: Agent A lists a house for sale and puts their sign in the yard. An unrepresented buyer drives by and likes the house and calls the agent whose name is on the sign. Agent A realizes that they can't get both the buying and selling commission, so they quickly call their buddy, Agent B, to show the house and write up the contract.
Result: The seller pays the FULL commission rather than a possible reduced commission that they might have paid had dual agency not been illegal.
You don't understand dual agency. The firm broker is the agent.
The licensees represent the firm.
Two licensees in the same firm representing buyer and seller in a transaction are working for a broker who is in in dual agency.
It is generally Designated Dual Agency which is how the parties are each provided with advocacy and the licensees are in a fiduciary role
But at that, it is just a form of dual agency.
You don't understand dual agency.
Two licensees in the same firm representing buyer and seller in a transaction are working for a broker who is in in dual agency.
It is generally Designated Dual Agency which is how the parties are each provided with advocacy and the licensees are in a fiduciary role
But at that, it is just a form of dual agency.
You're ASSUMING that Agent B (in my example) worked for the same real estate company. I didn't say nor imply that. Agent B works for a different company. Therefore, in my example, that would NOT be "dual agency". There's nothing that says that an agent can't have a friend who is an agent in a different real estate company working for a different broker.
You're ASSUMING that Agent B (in my example) worked for the same real estate company. I didn't say nor imply that. Agent B works for a different company. Therefore, in my example, that would NOT be "dual agency". There's nothing that says that an agent can't have a friend who is an agent in a different real estate company working for a different broker.
Details matter. See the OP below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf
I have told this story before but it bears retelling. A friend listed his house ($650K) with an agent who lived in the same complex and sold a lot of homes in the complex. She said 6% commission but if she was both the selling agent and the buyers agent it would be 4%.
They had a open house planned and the agent said she could not make it. They could either reschedule or she would have somebody from her office cover it. He said fine let someone cover it.
Some of you can see were this is going. Well somebody came through the open house and ended up making an offer. Well the person holding the open house claimed she was the buyers agent so my friend paid 6%. He feels his listing agent tricked him. I do not know about tricked, but she did not explain the issue upfront.
Yes, details DO matter. The post you quoted doesn't have a thing to do with my post which you replied to. Please try to keep up. You know what they say about making ASSumptions.
You don't understand dual agency. The firm broker is the agent.
The licensees represent the firm.
Two licensees in the same firm representing buyer and seller in a transaction are working for a broker who is in in dual agency.
It is generally Designated Dual Agency which is how the parties are each provided with advocacy and the licensees are in a fiduciary role
But at that, it is just a form of dual agency.
Do I understand correctly, that you're advice to "never allow Dual Agency" would in this case mean that the seller client should not allow any other agents belonging to the same firm to represent the buyer for their house, because the broker is a dual agent?
Do I understand correctly, that you're advice to "never allow Dual Agency" would in this case mean that the seller client should not allow any other agents belonging to the same firm to represent the buyer for their house, because the broker is a dual agent?
Yes. The BROKER is the dual agent.
The licensees affiliated with the broker are working in dual agency, under the dual agent broker.
Depending on the brokerage policies and state laws, they may or may not be able to offer advocacy to the parties.
I am not absolutely hard-core on "never" allow dual agency, but it is an approach more people should consider, and would consider if they understood agency parameters.
Everything works on signed contracts. So if someone signed off on this or that, then that's the deal. I don't know why there's a surprise on this (although I've been lied to by realtors so many times I wonder why I'm even writing this, so who knows what really happened?)
"Signing off" on vague wording often creates playground field days for attorneys and judges. The OP is somewhat vague on the details, as I suspect the listing agreement also was.
Most takes in this thread are quite vague and when the differences are material enough, things can end up in litigation or as complaints before state licensing disciplinary boards.
There likely is not enough money involved to lawyer up and sue, but this thread is a case study in active misunderstanding of agency and agency agreements.
Mike’s “no dual agency” rule would solve the problem by never offering the discount in the first place. And that’s not a bad rule to have if you want to avoid this kind of conflict. Don’t allow your agent to also represent another person in your transaction.
I don’t consider the designated broker dual agency to be an issue that compromises representation. My designated broker has no privileged information or contact with my client.
Last edited by Diana Holbrook; 12-26-2023 at 07:41 AM..
I'm with you on that. I sold a house back in the late 90's and I remember the agent, who was probably the most well known agent in town, trying to convince me to do this. Intuitively, it seemed wrong to me so I declined it.
You're ASSUMING that Agent B (in my example) worked for the same real estate company. ...
In most states, they do as a brokerage or agent cannot advertise or market another brokerages listings as their own. In SC, an agent from Broker B cannot host an open house at the listing of Broker A.
If that was the case at the listing in question it would have had to be from the same brokerage or it would be a violation. However, the friend still should have asked questions if they had concerns or refused to accept the offer if they didn't like their net. Assuming is bad, but this probably didn't become an issue until someone like John put the thought in her head that she got ripped off and she was gullible enough to believe it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
