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.
I've never understood this idea of the agent taking less if they sell it themselves.
95% of the time or something close to that in DFW another agent will rep the buyer.
Maybe that was reduced a bit during the craziness, but that is over.
It's just as much work or more to rep both parties and the risk is greater, so why should the fee be lower.
Although I guess that is not the question here.
Sounds like the new agent was representing both and the fee should have been 4%, too bad for the original agent who handed it off.
How do you figure that? From what I understand, one agent listed the house and another agent SOLD the house (presumably from the showing at the open house and writing up the purchase agreement).
I would be the seller in this scenario. I wouldn't feel "tricked" because that implies the agents planned the situation. I would feel misled.
I would feel that I should only have to pay the lower commission because supposedly the second agent was representing my agent in attending. That second agent would be privileged to information that the random buyer's agent would not be--how motivated I was, perhaps minor flaws that did not have to be disclosed, whatever. Unless you are telling me that the second agent was doing nothing but collecting names of potential clients (not buyers for my house but clients), I feel that he was representing me.
I probably couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it, but that's how most sellers would feel. And they would bad-mouth you to all their friends and relatives, etc.
I would be the seller in this scenario. I wouldn't feel "tricked" because that implies the agents planned the situation. I would feel misled.
I would feel that I should only have to pay the lower commission because supposedly the second agent was representing my agent in attending. That second agent would be privileged to information that the random buyer's agent would not be--how motivated I was, perhaps minor flaws that did not have to be disclosed, whatever. Unless you are telling me that the second agent was doing nothing but collecting names of potential clients (not buyers for my house but clients), I feel that he was representing me.
I probably couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it, but that's how most sellers would feel. And they would bad-mouth you to all their friends and relatives, etc.
Yeah. A lot of folks don't grasp agency and run on "feelings" rather than knowing rules and regulations and contracts.
I would be the seller in this scenario. I wouldn't feel "tricked" because that implies the agents planned the situation. I would feel misled.
I would feel that I should only have to pay the lower commission because supposedly the second agent was representing my agent in attending. That second agent would be privileged to information that the random buyer's agent would not be--how motivated I was, perhaps minor flaws that did not have to be disclosed, whatever. Unless you are telling me that the second agent was doing nothing but collecting names of potential clients (not buyers for my house but clients), I feel that he was representing me.
I probably couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it, but that's how most sellers would feel. And they would bad-mouth you to all their friends and relatives, etc.
Except every other agent at our firm is a potential competitor, and they are not privy to any information I wouldn't share with any other buyer's agent. It's not like we share files or private info, we don't share anything.
I would be the seller in this scenario. I wouldn't feel "tricked" because that implies the agents planned the situation. I would feel misled.
I would feel that I should only have to pay the lower commission because supposedly the second agent was representing my agent in attending. That second agent would be privileged to information that the random buyer's agent would not be--how motivated I was, perhaps minor flaws that did not have to be disclosed, whatever. Unless you are telling me that the second agent was doing nothing but collecting names of potential clients (not buyers for my house but clients), I feel that he was representing me.
I probably couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it, but that's how most sellers would feel. And they would bad-mouth you to all their friends and relatives, etc.
The agreement was that if the listing agent represented BOTH the seller and the buyer, then the commission would be 4%. If there were another agent involved, then the commission would be 6%. Why would anyone think that the listing agent represented a buyer whom they had never met, had never talked to, had never shown a house to, and never wrote up a contract for?
Real estate agents are independent contractors and work for themselves under the license of their broker. Agent "A" has no business relationship with Agent "B" even if both work under the license of the same broker. If Agent A gives Agent B a prospect or client or a situation that enables Agent B to obtain a prospect or a client, then Agent A has no claim to any commission that Agent B may earn from any subsequent sale or listing from that prospect or client. Agent A and Agent B are each working in their own interest just as if they worked for different companies/brokers.
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?)
Yeah. A lot of folks don't grasp agency and run on "feelings" rather than knowing rules and regulations and contracts.
Again: Never allow dual agency. Problem solved.
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.
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.
