U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-05-2012, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Gilbert - Val Vista Lakes
6,069 posts, read 12,721,488 times
Reputation: 3810

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2008 View Post

What you said here is false. As said in the link, the claim for tortuous interference requires breach. There would be no breach is the agent agreed to reduce his commission.
I disagree. Why is the agent having to reduce the commission? Because the seller is coercing him to reduce it in order to make a deal. The agent would have been acting under duress. The only reason an agent would reduce the commission in a situation where someone is interfering is because the seller has probably threatened to cancel the listing agreement, or other threats if the commission is not reduced.

Quote:
Duress:
1.compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.

2.Law . such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence.
The buyer interfered with the contract, the seller breached the agreement by coercing the agent to reduce the commission, and the agent was damaged.

I suggest anyone obtain an opinion from their attorney before ever getting involved in interfering with a third party contract.

As I said, my attorney would be my first call.

Quote:
Damages

Typical legal remedies for tortious interference include economic losses if they can be proven with certainty and mental distress. Additionally punitive damages may be awarded if malice on the part of the wrongdoer can be established.
Is it worth the risk?

Last edited by Captain Bill; 08-05-2012 at 01:46 PM..

 
Old 08-05-2012, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,949 posts, read 36,566,197 times
Reputation: 21558
"A plaintiff may show the defendant's interference with another's contractual relation is intentional if the actor desires to bring it about or "if he knows that the interference is certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of his action." Intent can be shown even if the interference is incidental to the actor's intended purpose and desire "but known to him to be a necessary consequence of his action." From an analysis of BECO Construction Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Defendant-Respondent (145 Idaho 719; 184 P.3d 844; 2008 Ida. LEXIS 84).
 
Old 08-05-2012, 03:18 PM
 
4,383 posts, read 8,728,813 times
Reputation: 2333
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
"A plaintiff may show the defendant's interference with another's contractual relation is intentional if the actor desires to bring it about or "if he knows that the interference is certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of his action." Intent can be shown even if the interference is incidental to the actor's intended purpose and desire "but known to him to be a necessary consequence of his action." From an analysis of BECO Construction Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Defendant-Respondent (145 Idaho 719; 184 P.3d 844; 2008 Ida. LEXIS 84).
This case is about a consultant, rigging quality tests to fail so that the city could get out of paying a contractor. Are you really holding this up as a legitimate comparison to the subject at hand?
 
Old 08-05-2012, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Salem, OR
13,764 posts, read 31,728,546 times
Reputation: 12151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post

Now I am of the opinion that there is no offer, and that your thread was started in order to rant against Realtor commissions.
We got that clarified already. He attached the offer as a .pdf and then the email was essentially what he would have said verbally to the agent if he trusted the listing agent. But he put it in writing because he wanted to ensure that the seller saw it. Hence, his desire to get clarification if we had to pass along the email or not. I think it is a legitimate question.

His name is RESkeptic. You were expecting him to come out singing Kumbaya? He stated his bias just with his username. Just like we get to state ours when we write Real Estate Agent, etc under our names.
 
Old 08-05-2012, 06:34 PM
 
3,402 posts, read 4,162,441 times
Reputation: 2399
Geez this thread. I think the skeptic is sitting there laughing his azz off that he got so many real estate agents all fired up about this whole thing. There's really no point in arguing with someone like him and it may never have even happened.
 
Old 08-05-2012, 06:48 PM
 
4,635 posts, read 7,268,295 times
Reputation: 4759
You'd think by now the seller would have countered????????
 
Old 08-05-2012, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Cary, NC
31,761 posts, read 55,676,756 times
Reputation: 30374
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocngypz View Post
You'd think by now the seller would have countered????????
Martha Anne hasn't listed yet, and it wouldn't be arms-length anyway......
 
Old 08-05-2012, 07:23 PM
 
4,635 posts, read 7,268,295 times
Reputation: 4759
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Martha Anne hasn't listed yet, and it wouldn't be arms-length anyway......
LOL...

Go look at her latest!

Doesn't NY have laws about animal hoarding..............
 
Old 08-06-2012, 10:15 AM
 
3,248 posts, read 2,769,816 times
Reputation: 6620
Boys and girls, we've been had. It was fun but it's time to move on. Troll, pure and simple, who achieved exactly what he wanted. No more feed, please.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 11:09 AM
 
413 posts, read 701,476 times
Reputation: 294
Question for all you real estate agents out there:

Don't you kind of want to renegotiate the agreement with your seller if this situation arises. I understand that it would be great to be dual agent and get both sides of the commission. But do you really think that is going to happen when the buyer is specifically looking on his own in an effort to reduce the net price.

Is there really any chance that you are going to get the full 6% commission? There is no way that the buyer is just going to give it to you. He is after all the one who found the house. But forget about fairness, you are providing him with absolutely no incentive to use you. He saves zero dollars. At the very least he can get a full service agent who will serve only his interests. Plus he is probably not going to be your biggest fan. Plus he can probably find a realtor to rebate him a significant portion of the commission.

So what I am saying is that there is virtually no chance that you earn a 6% commission. In fact when you take on the listing you are really just hoping for a quick sale with a 3% commission. So I just don't get why you wouldn't jump at a chance to wrap up the sale and make a little extra money. Wouldn't you rather take 4% and pass on a 1% savings to both buyer and seller than have the buyer bring another agent to the table and stick you with a 3% commission. It seems like a win-win-win. I just don't get how it is in your own best interest to hold the line on this.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top