Real Estate Purchase Ethics Question (Bath, Nassau: short sale, brokers, how much)

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by LIOC

But even Tom Moser's contract places the duty and liability on the seller, not he the buyer.

It's true, the legal liability is on the seller, but the original question was about ethics. As someone who supports his family by selling real estate, I would consider it unethical for someone who I showed a property to to deliberately wait and contact the owner after the listing expired. It may be legal, but I always consider it unethical when someone tries to circumvent someone else who was acting in good faith in order to save themselves a few bucks. Fortunately, most people do not have that mind set. If they did, I would have to not show any home to any one unless they signed a binding agreement with me. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe that most people are honest.

[LIOC]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

It's true, the legal liability is on the seller, but the original question was about ethics. As someone who supports his family by selling real estate, I would consider it unethical for someone who I showed a property to to deliberately wait and contact the owner after the listing expired. It may be legal, but I always consider it unethical when someone tries to circumvent someone else who was acting in good faith in order to save themselves a few bucks. Fortunately, most people do not have that mind set. If they did, I would have to not show any home to any one unless they signed a binding agreement with me. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe that most people are honest.

If you truly thought people were so honest you would clause in your contract.

I guess if you went to a car dealership and a salesmen showed you an car etc. You then came back to find out the salesman's is no longer there but works across the street selling the same type of car. You would not take the new salesmen offer of of a lower price. You would cross the street to pay more?

The OP is not ready to buy but will be in a short time. She should look for the best price available when she is ready.

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by LIOC

I guess if you went to a car dealership and a salesmen showed you an car etc. You then came back to find out the salesman's is no longer there but works across the street selling the same type of car. You would not take the new salesmen offer of of a lower price. You would cross the street to pay more?

This makes no sense. I don't understand your analogy.

[LIOC]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

This makes no sense. I don't understand your analogy.

Sorry I was typing quickly.

A) You go to a dealership "1" and a salesmen "A" shows you a car, you test drive, go over options etc etc..

b) You are just looking but plan to buy in the next few weeks.

c)you come to buy but the salesmen you dealt with before is now selling the same Model car but across the street for the same price you were 1st offered

d) new salesmen at the dealership "1" offers the car to you for less then they dealer "A"

would take the deal, or go across the street to pay more?

[TomMoser]

It's not really quite the same. The original poster was talking about waiting for the listing to expire in order to deny the real estate agent the commission that he would be otherwise entitled to. If you were to use your car analogy, the correct analogy would be that you find a car in the car dealership and you call up the owner of the dealership directly to try to make a deal that denies the saleman his rightful commission.

[monkeygorilla]

I'm sure the agent wouldn't be too happy about it, but I don't think its unethical for a buyer to do this once the contract has expired, unless of course the contract included a provision about the seller not being allowed to sell directly to any buyer the agent showed the house to. I don't see how the buyer would have any obligation at all to the seller's agent.

[LIOC]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

It's not really quite the same. The original poster was talking about waiting for the listing to expire in order to deny the real estate agent the commission that he would be otherwise entitled to. If you were to use your car analogy, the correct analogy would be that you find a car in the car dealership and you call up the owner of the dealership directly to try to make a deal that denies the saleman his rightful commission.

I guess the sticking point for me is that the house will no longer the under contract when she wishes to buy. If it was under contract and she contacted the seller now and asked them to hold off selling till the contract was over I would see it differently.

The agent still has the time under their contract to sell to someone else

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by monkeygorilla

I'm sure the agent wouldn't be too happy about it, but I don't think its unethical for a buyer to do this once the contract has expired, unless of course the contract included a provision about the seller not being allowed to sell directly to any buyer the agent showed the house to. I don't see how the buyer would have any obligation at all to the seller's agent.

I would agree with you if the buyer happened to find out down the road that the listing had expired (for example, if he saw later a For Sale By Owner sign), but to deliberately wait and then contact the seller is a different matter. To me that is purposely using someone who is dealing with you in good faith. Oh, well, different people have different standards. I know some people who will go out of their way to make sure that you are fairly compensated. I know others who will throw you over to save a nickel.

[monkeygorilla]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

I would agree with you if the buyer happened to find out down the road that the listing had expired (for example, if he saw later a For Sale By Owner sign), but to deliberately wait and then contact the seller is a different matter. To me that is purposely using someone who is dealing with you in good faith. Oh, well, different people have different standards. I know some people who will go out of their way to make sure that you are fairly compensated. I know others who will throw you over to save a nickel.

IMO, it doesn't matter how the buyer happened to find out that the contract is expiring. By waiting for it to expire they are taking the risk of the house selling, so if they want to take the risk & the house is still available once the contract expires, I personally don't see a problem with it.

Let me ask you this...do you think the agent would still be entitled to his/her commision after the contract expires if the seller lists the house with another agent & that agent sells the house to a buyer the first agent showed the house to? Is the 2nd agent being unethical by not sharing the commision with the 1st agent?

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by monkeygorilla

Let me ask you this...do you think the agent would still be entitled to his/her commision after the contract expires if the buyer lists the house with another agent & that agent sells the house to a buyer the first agent showed the house to? Is the 2nd agent being unethical by not sharing the commision with the 1st agent?

Ah, now you are getting into some very interesting territory that we Realtors deal with every day. The first agent might, very well, under LIBOR rules and National Association of Realtors ethical standards be entitled to the commission.

The question of who gets the commission (and we go to arbitration over these issues regularly) is who was the "procuring cause" of the sale. There are many factors that the arbitrator weighs to determine this including who showed the property first, the overall relationship between the buyer and each agent involved, etc. It's really a very interesting area because every case is different.