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.
Again, it is simply when the buyer finds the house they intend to put an offer in on.
Did you think that it wasn't specific in the details because the specifying language could leave a buyer too much room to wiggle out? If you put in "after an offer is written," then that leaves open the possibility of an agent doing all the work for the buyer, having the buyer suddenly terminate, and find out the house is under contract the next day? As you surely know, a good contract protects both sides. Specifying it so closely wouldn't do much to protect the exclusivity the agent needs.
If you were to specify as when the agent writes the offer, how does that protect an agent from doing all the unpaid legwork, showing the house, etc, only to have the rug pulled out from underneath him?
There is understanding contracts on a professional level, and understanding the concept of a contract in general. Even Joe Landscaper has signed contracts with his landlord, employer, parole officer, Bass Boat financing company...
If Joe Landscaper is a competent adult, he understands what "going under contract" to purchase a house means, meaning he's obligated to buy the house, and has written a check to the buyer (at least in NC) that he will never see again if he backs out (Due diligence fee.) He certainly can't argue at that point that the house isn't "suitable," since at that point he's agreed to buy it.
So even if he's so dense as to argue that he thought he could back out of the agreement after the offer was accepted, anyone and everyone involved will tell him that he's wrong. Feelings hurt? Sure. My college roommate felt our landlord was obligated to fix his car when a tree branch fell on it. He wasn't. My roommate's feelings were hurt. He went to the student legal aid department, and even they told him that just because he thought the landlord should have spent more money on tree-trimmers, doesn't mean that its his fault a branch came down in an ice storm that took out power for half the county.
You're speculating that Mike is keeping his wording vague on purpose to protect his exclusivity. I have no idea if this is the case but somehow I don't think that Mike would agree with this but who knows. In principle, I think it would be unethical for a business to purposefully make something vague to selectively impose limits later. Everything in life and business has limits so just be clear about what they are. If you are keeping things vague so you then are free to impose limits as you wish, you should not play these games and should be clear upfront about what the limits are. Anything else is not a straightforward way to do business and is shameful.
Your repeated explanation of "when the buyer finds the house they intend to put an offer in on" makes no sense as you can argue all day about when someone intended to do something. What would you say if an online clothes shop said that you can "return clothes that you don't want". You read this and you scratch your head not knowing what the heck it specifically means. You contact the retailer and they say "you can return it up to the point that you intend to keep it". Huh? "This is a weird business" you say. Why can't they just say I can return it within 3 weeks of receipt or something that normal people can understand. If you really mean that I can return it whenever I want with absolutely no limitations, just say that. Why be cryptic? Cryptic = unprofessional.
While I agree with you that it gets increasingly awkward to terminate the further along things get, I'm not going to argue every "what if" case. The point is that there should be no uncertainty. In your example, maybe the inspection found that the home needs a new furnace and the buyer snaps and calls Mike to terminate. "House is not suitable! I don't want a house with a bad furnace". Maybe later he'll negotiate a resolution with the seller. Maybe not. Who knows? You can't see into the future. I suggest that any limitations are clear for consumers to understand. Not all legal language will be 100% iron clad with no possibility of dispute but be professional and do things right and a lot of problems can be avoided.
I don't think Agency has anything to do with binding, but over the years it's quasi morphed in that direction. <this is where I go off on a history lesson tangent, sorry>
When dinosaurs roamed the earth and man put his cave up for sale, it was understood he would offer a commission to his agent that marketed his cave and another commission to the agent that brought him a buyer. When the contract was presented, the seller would ask, do you think your buyer would pay more? And one day, a brazen agent would not share anything about his buyer. The seller huffed and puffed and took this agent to court.
He told the judge, "I am paying the agent that brought me a buyer, he owes it to me to share all he knows about this buyer, he works for me." And the courts agreed, the buyer's agent worked for the seller unless he held in his hand a written agreement saying otherwise. And this is where we are right now.
The time around that ruling and until each state put their own statute of law on the books was a hoot early 90's-ish - it was every company doing their own thing (this was while the lawyers were drafting disclosures and Realtor's and their firms were winging it - one particular lawsuit shook up a few companies). One firm was given a card to read to their buyers and required letters of engagement. Agency, and ultimately Buyer Agreements were initially created for the buyer's protection, it provided confirmation of confidentiality and loyalty to the buyer. Somewhere along the way, the binding tightened, but also, a fiduciary responsibility became a requirement. The agreements morphed into the exclusive and dual agency agreements. And these agreements and their execution vary from company to company and State to state, but almost all contain a start date, an end date, and how to get out.
Thank you for reminding us that the buyer's agent model is perverse and arose only as an awkward compromise.
Imagine walking into a car dealer and the sales person approaches you. No problem. You understand that he's there to sell you a car. You are on your guard. Your objective is different from his and they may, in fact, be 100% at odds. No problem - there is truth in packaging. He's a sales guy and he doesn't pretend to be anything else.
But then another person walks up to you who looks and behaves a lot like the sales guy. In fact, 'sales person' is part of the title on their name badge. They explain to you that they wish to work with you to "protect your interests" as you deal with the "other" sales guy. You've never bought a car before and you're kind of confused. But then they explain that it's all "free" to you. They protect you and you pay nothing. He will protect my interests and explain all of these complicated things to me all for free. Hmmm....not sure. Sounds too good to be true. Your pappy taught you that things that sound too good to be true smell bad. You check the "heavily regulated" messaging from the car association and it explains that the purpose of the model is for the car buyer's advocate and the car sales person to cooperate together to sell cars. Hmmm...now i'm even more confused. If he's cooperating with the sales guy and the sales guy is giving him half of his commission, how on earth is he going to look after my interests. Whatcha talkin' about Willis??? Gosh darn-it, this is weird stuff.
But I need a car and I go back. Hmmm...no so sure about this. But then he reminds me that it's all "free" to me. Gosh darn-it, buying a car is so complicated and I'm afraid of being taken advantage of. So I think...better to have someone on my side than going it alone. and if it's free...sure, I'll agree. I guess...I guess it's OK....I mean the guy that wants to help me...um...seems nice.
The buyer's agent model is a parallel universe of bizarre-dom. you are either a sales person or you are an advocate for the buyer (and earn no commission for selling stuff). you can't be both. Trying to be both is fundamentally misleading and a conflict of interest. A million disclosures and disclaimers do not correct the fundamental flaws of the model. Simples.
Thank you for reminding us that the buyer's agent model is perverse and arose only as an awkward compromise.
Imagine walking into a car dealer and the sales person approaches you. No problem. You understand that he's there to sell you a car. You are on your guard. Your objective is different from his and they may, in fact, be 100% at odds. No problem - there is truth in packaging. He's a sales guy and he doesn't pretend to be anything else.
But then another person walks up to you who looks and behaves a lot like the sales guy. In fact, 'sales person' is part of the title on their name badge. They explain to you that they wish to work with you to "protect your interests" as you deal with the "other" sales guy. You've never bought a car before and you're kind of confused. But then they explain that it's all "free" to you. They protect you and you pay nothing. He will protect my interests and explain all of these complicated things to me all for free. Hmmm....not sure. Sounds too good to be true. Your pappy taught you that things that sound too good to be true smell bad. You check the "heavily regulated" messaging from the car association and it explains that the purpose of the model is for the car buyer's advocate and the car sales person to cooperate together to sell cars. Hmmm...now i'm even more confused. If he's cooperating with the sales guy and the sales guy is giving him half of his commission, how on earth is he going to look after my interests. Whatcha talkin' about Willis??? Gosh darn-it, this is weird stuff.
But I need a car and I go back. Hmmm...no so sure about this. But then he reminds me that it's all "free" to me. Gosh darn-it, buying a car is so complicated and I'm afraid of being taken advantage of. So I think...better to have someone on my side than going it alone. and if it's free...sure, I'll agree. I guess...I guess it's OK....I mean the guy that wants to help me...um...seems nice.
The buyer's agent model is a parallel universe of bizarre-dom. you are either a sales person or you are an advocate for the buyer (and earn no commission for selling stuff). you can't be both. Trying to be both is fundamentally misleading and a conflict of interest. A million disclosures and disclaimers do not correct the fundamental flaws of the model. Simples.
We are nothing like car salesmen. A car salesmen has to sell you a car on the lot he works in or he doesn't make a buck. A realestate buyers agent can show you everything in your area for sale no matter where it is. They aren't limited to trying to sell you on something you don't really want whereas a car salesmen could be.
It would only be the same if a car salesmen were getting paid to drive you around everywhere in town to all the car lots.
It doesn't sound like you had a listing agreement yet, so why was your lockbox was on the door?
It was a contractor lockbox so they could leave a key for me to get in to check progress and their people to get in and work on the house. It wasn't an MLS lockbox.
Aside from that, nothing states that I can't put a lockbox on a door without an MLS agreement in place as long as the owner agrees.
We are nothing like car salesmen. A car salesmen has to sell you a car on the lot he works in or he doesn't make a buck. A realestate buyers agent can show you everything in your area for sale no matter where it is. They aren't limited to trying to sell you on something you don't really want whereas a car salesmen could be.
It would only be the same if a car salesmen were getting paid to drive you around everywhere in town to all the car lots.
I did not say that the sales person who was also the 'buyer's representative' was tied to one dealer. As long as there is a commission to be split, they will try to make the sale.
You're speculating that Mike is keeping his wording vague on purpose to protect his exclusivity.
How on earth did you arrive at that interpretation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_because
Thank you for reminding us that the buyer's agent model is perverse and arose only as an awkward compromise.
She didn't say that at all. Please quit making things up just to be argumentative. It's a rather tired refrain by now. Don't you even get tired from all of your twisting?
How on earth did you arrive at that interpretation?
She didn't say that at all. Please quit making things up just to be argumentative. It's a rather tired refrain by now. Don't you even get tired from all of your twisting?
While I respect your dreams and aspirations, Jack, you are just setting the bar for intellectual integrity WAY too high in this instance.
I always wonder why so people that hate us agents so much hang out in this forum.
I see serving as their foils is a service we perform.
Any time they spend with us is time away from more impressionable people.
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.
