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 08-06-2012, 07:24 PM
 
1,724 posts, read 2,275,604 times
Reputation: 3424

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyngawf View Post
A Realtor usually won't refuse to show a FSBO if the seller is willing to pay them and will agree to sign something saying as much.

Hiring a Realtor is a choice and most people know it and feel it is worth it to do so. If they didn't Realtors wouldn't be in business at all.

Comparing Realtors commission to taxes isn't a good comparison at all. You are very wrong about how many of us feel about the money we give the government. People do consider taxes their money that they worked hard for, but there is no choice but to pay the government according to how the law is written. People sell FSBO's all the time. It can be done if you educate yourself and market your house so people can find it. Most people would rather not, or try to do so and find out that it takes more than they thought it would.
Why should a fsbo seller have to pay a commission to the buyers agent? The agent was hired by the buyer. What service did the agent provide to the buyer? From what I can see from the sellers standpoint he provided nothing of substance to the seller. I understand an agent needs to be payed once he has performed work, but in that case the agent should look to the buyer, not the seller.

That probably won't ever happen though bc the buyer will look at how much the agent wants(what he was already paying in commission) and scoff that he isn't going to pay that just to be a shown a house.

Finally in regards to taxes, I suspect many realtors do despise taxes bc many are probably self-employed and have to actually write the check to the IRS instead of it just automatically being deducted from your wages....it hurts a lot more when you have to do that which is why I propose that realtors should get their commissions this way...not just another stack of papers with numbers everywhere but an actual real deal check! Buyers & sellers would look at commissions very differently if that happened.

 
Old 08-06-2012, 07:33 PM
 
1,724 posts, read 2,275,604 times
Reputation: 3424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
Everything you've typed is a general statement towards attorneys. Why does Law Schools continue to pump out more than needed in this world. Why do attorneys lack professionalism with such a low image by the public?

We could discuss for hours the different methods attorneys collect fees. There is much room for taking advantage of a client in your line of work.

Your line of work does not need to criticize any other for it's bad image problems.
You won't find me defending attorneys fees....the bar is full of crooks and cheats. Big law fees are outrageous and the atmosphere encourages associates to inflate their billables...I am keenly aware of this. I went to law school so I would not have to pay attorneys to do things I am capable of doing just as good or better. I work for a manufacturing corporation tasked with minimizing compliance costs and negotiating contracts...I make salary and work free of the billable hour requirement. I sleep quite well at night knowing I am not contributing to the problems in the legal field.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Salem, OR
13,749 posts, read 31,588,814 times
Reputation: 12119
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
Why should a fsbo seller have to pay a commission to the buyers agent?
They don't have to. Real estate commissions are a closing cost. The buyer can ask the seller to pay that closing cost on behalf of the buyer. What aren't you getting about that?

The only exception is VA loans. VA won't allow the buyer to pay real estate commissions. It has to be paid for by the seller.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 09:26 PM
 
397 posts, read 491,799 times
Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
You asked a question, and you received LOTS of answers. That you didn't like the answers doesn't make them not answers, or any less accurate, for that matter.
You are giving the weight of your (and the other RAs) answers way too much credit! I think you are misinterpreting the intent of my OP. I was not seeking your approval or hoping that RAs would "bolster my argument". Instead, I was hoping to get some interesting perspectives on interesting and pertinent issues (email communication and unrepresented buyers); preferably from the "public" and people familiar with RE law (attorneys). I knew what the response would be from the RA crowd.


Quote:
And as for what you're "not sure" of, you've gotten answers from the agents here about their practices as regards transparency. Including the fact that most of your concerns are contained in the contract the seller signs with the listing agent, thus are transparent IN WRITING. You keep saying things are hidden and agents from all around the country keep showing you where they exist in the listing contracts used. Again, just because you don't like something or it doesn't bolster your argument doesn't make it any less real.
Again, I think you missed my point about Listing Agreements and have failed to understand the figurative meaning of a "hidden gem". Just b/c it is IN WRITING does not mean it is transparent & just b/c the seller signs the contract does not mean they fully understand it. If your seller completely understood the nuances of the commission arrangement (as outline by the LA), then you should have no problem with an unrepresented buyer raising the issue to the issue of BA commission. The fact that so many of you vehemently object to this lends credence to the tenuous legitimacy of your stake in the BA commission.


Quote:
Again, if your employer were approached by a customer who tried to convince them to pay you less so that the customer would benefit, not you, not your employer, but the customer who wanted some of your money for themselves, what would be your response?
Huh? I guess you missed grammar day in RE school.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 09:36 PM
 
397 posts, read 491,799 times
Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippyman View Post
You can google the term to see what it means, I assure you it isn't a made-up term. As for application, the most likely target wouldn't be the buyer, it would be the seller, for breaching the contract terms. Is that common?, no - most people pay their bills & honor signed contracts.
Nice try zippy. I think it is well established that TI is "not made up", but thanks for suggesting a google search.

TI refers to interference from a 3rd party. "As for application", the "target" would be the buyer, not the seller as you suggest.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Salem, OR
13,749 posts, read 31,588,814 times
Reputation: 12119
Quote:
Originally Posted by RE Skeptic View Post
You are giving the weight of your (and the other RAs) answers way too much credit! I think you are misinterpreting the intent of my OP. I was not seeking your approval or hoping that RAs would "bolster my argument". Instead, I was hoping to get some interesting perspectives on interesting and pertinent issues (email communication and unrepresented buyers); preferably from the "public" and people familiar with RE law (attorneys). I knew what the response would be from the RA crowd.
THe only real estate attorney that I'm aware of that has ever participated on here was Austin-Willy. He did commercial real estate.

Consumers would have no way of knowing what the state laws require regarding email communications. The unrepresented buyer issue has been hashed out on here lots and lots of times. You could have just done a search for all of those threads if you wanted to see what consumers thought. It just isn't a new topic and even consumers get tired of talking about it.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,885 posts, read 36,416,546 times
Reputation: 21327
Quote:
Originally Posted by RE Skeptic View Post
Nice try zippy. I think it is well established that TI is "not made up", but thanks for suggesting a google search.

TI refers to interference from a 3rd party. "As for application", the "target" would be the buyer, not the seller as you suggest.
Yes, and you are a third party trying to interfere with the contract between the seller and the listing agent, by encouraging the seller to attempt to renegotiate the contract for your benefit. That's really what it boils down to, put bluntly, and you are very much reluctant to acknowledge the truth of that even in light of your several comments describing exactly that as the content of your email to the seller.

You are right that you would be the target of any lawsuit, as the third party attempting to interfere with a contract between two other parties for your own benefit.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 10:11 PM
 
397 posts, read 491,799 times
Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
The OP buyer is trying to save money by cutting out a Realtor, so why would he hire an attorney?
Because they have value.


Quote:
That is not what the OP was interested in. And I will only act as a dual agent if I know that both parties will be reasonable. That's because as a dual agent I must become neutral. I cannot advocate for either party. If I sense that a party, such as the OP, is unreasonable, then I will not be a dual agent, and would inform the seller of the reasons.
What am I interested in? Leveraging my unrepresented status to maximize the value of my RE purchase. Does this always work, no. I understand that in RE negotiations one party rarely has a clean win. Do I expect 3% back, probably not. But there are times when a SA is willing to renegotiate a LA to provide the seller with concessions to get the deal done. This is different than the seller breaching contract.

Quote:
We could go off into many tangents and how things would or should be done in various situations. In this thread we're discussing the OP's question, which boils down to what is tortious interference with a third party contract.
Still waiting for you to site a case where a buyer was successfully sued for TI...

Quote:
An attorney will charge $300 and up, per hour, and not leave his office. You cannot compare a one hour attorney fee to a completed real estate transaction
Here is a more accurate formula: 1hr attorney fee + well informed buyer = "completed RE transaction"
 
Old 08-06-2012, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,380,187 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Yes, and you are a third party trying to interfere with the contract between the seller and the listing agent, by encouraging the seller to attempt to renegotiate the contract for your benefit. .
AZ REALTORS do not try to interfere with the listing agreement as there is no language in the Purchase offer dealing with ANYTHING related to the commission or commission rate / amount. Commission is between the Seller and Listing Broker.
 
Old 08-07-2012, 05:06 AM
 
1,724 posts, read 2,275,604 times
Reputation: 3424
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Yes, and you are a third party trying to interfere with the contract between the seller and the listing agent, by encouraging the seller to attempt to renegotiate the contract for your benefit. That's really what it boils down to, put bluntly, and you are very much reluctant to acknowledge the truth of that even in light of your several comments describing exactly that as the content of your email to the seller.

You are right that you would be the target of any lawsuit, as the third party attempting to interfere with a contract between two other parties for your own benefit.

THL - There are 4 elements to a tort...1) Duty, 2) Breach 3) Causation 4) Damages..all 4 MUST be present to have a tort...Simply asking a seller and an agent to renegotiate can NEVER, not under any possible construction of torts be considered a tort.

It lakes one of the 4 elements - namely BREACH...a Person can not induce another to breach their contract, they either breach it on their own or not at all...

I am 100% confident, not 99%, 100% confident that asking seller and real estate agent to modify their agreement is not TI....Either party, Seller or Agent can say NO and its over. All contracts are modifiable with mutual consent - and contracts are modified every minute of every day. In nearly every modification one party is worse off than he was before but people agree to modifications b/c in the end its better to modify now and get something than not, and then later get nothing.
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