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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2018, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
31,595 posts, read 55,320,924 times
Reputation: 30150

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots. View Post
I had no problem doing so. It's my job. I have a responsibility to not let sellers get caught up in things that aren't their problem I think.
As REALTORS®, we have an ethical requirement to "present offers objectively."

I often wonder how that applies to knowingly letting our clients go to contract with a crook at the helm?

I have had a couple of agents laugh at the requests to fix obvious errors.
It just isn't important to them.
But, I have to present the offers, and I certainly point out the errors so my client is clear on the issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2018, 11:09 AM
 
1,528 posts, read 725,070 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots. View Post
Add that to the list of reasons that Im glad I don't live in Oregon
Do the tenets of the procuring cause differ by state? It seems that the NAR defines the principle so wouldn't that meant that the definition/principles hold true across the US?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 11:13 AM
 
1,528 posts, read 725,070 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots. View Post
He has asked me in two different emails to do something illegal. My broker is aware of it. I had to tell because its holding things up. You are right that all I can do is represent my sellers. And I am. They are happy and Im doing my best to not let buyer agent inneptitude ruin it for them. Doesn't it ever bother you just a little bit when you have to direct the other agent as well so much that you seem to have to do their job to get the deal done?
Just curious...wouldn't this need to revert immediately to you being the sole agent for the seller? How does that work? Did you immediately inform the seller that you were no longer acting as a dual agent? Or if it's in some kind of limbo, I would think that when offers are being presented, it's vital for this to be 100% clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Athol, Idaho
2,182 posts, read 1,055,531 times
Reputation: 3184
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_because View Post
Do the tenets of the procuring cause differ by state? It seems that the NAR defines the principle so wouldn't that meant that the definition/principles hold true across the US?
If you google it it is obvious that it can be gray and that is why it is ultimately decided by an arbitration committee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2018, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Athol, Idaho
2,182 posts, read 1,055,531 times
Reputation: 3184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
As REALTORS®, we have an ethical requirement to "present offers objectively."

I often wonder how that applies to knowingly letting our clients go to contract with a crook at the helm?

I have had a couple of agents laugh at the requests to fix obvious errors.
It just isn't important to them.
But, I have to present the offers, and I certainly point out the errors so my client is clear on the issues.
The last thing you should ever do is badmouth another agent to their client. You can get in big trouble there. I am doing nothing wrong by letting them make this choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2018, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Salem, OR
13,741 posts, read 31,562,927 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots. View Post
If you google it it is obvious that it can be gray and that is why it is ultimately decided by an arbitration committee.
The Oregon supreme court actually decided it for our state so it isn't gray.

Here is their statement on procuring cause here. I totally agree with it, by the way.

“When a broker is engaged by an owner of property to find a purchaser for it, the broker earns his commission when (a) he produces a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy on the terms fixed by the owner, (b) the purchaser enters into a binding contract with the owner to do so, and (c) the purchaser completes the transaction by closing the title in accordance with the provisions of the contract. If the contract is not consummated because of lack of financial ability of the buyer to perform or because of any other default of his, * * * there is no right to commission against the seller. On the other hand, if the failure of completion of the contract results from the wrongful act or interference of the seller, the broker's claim is valid and must be paid. In short, in the absence of default by the seller, the broker's right to commission against the seller comes into existence only when his buyer performs in accordance with the contract of sale."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2018, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Athol, Idaho
2,182 posts, read 1,055,531 times
Reputation: 3184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall View Post
The Oregon supreme court actually decided it for our state so it isn't gray.

Here is their statement on procuring cause here. I totally agree with it, by the way.

“When a broker is engaged by an owner of property to find a purchaser for it, the broker earns his commission when (a) he produces a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy on the terms fixed by the owner, (b) the purchaser enters into a binding contract with the owner to do so, and (c) the purchaser completes the transaction by closing the title in accordance with the provisions of the contract. If the contract is not consummated because of lack of financial ability of the buyer to perform or because of any other default of his, * * * there is no right to commission against the seller. On the other hand, if the failure of completion of the contract results from the wrongful act or interference of the seller, the broker's claim is valid and must be paid. In short, in the absence of default by the seller, the broker's right to commission against the seller comes into existence only when his buyer performs in accordance with the contract of sale."
In Oregon they also ride naked in big groups of people on bikes. And it isn't relevant to my transaction in Idaho
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2018, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Athol, Idaho
2,182 posts, read 1,055,531 times
Reputation: 3184
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_because View Post
Do the tenets of the procuring cause differ by state? It seems that the NAR defines the principle so wouldn't that meant that the definition/principles hold true across the US?
I think they do vary
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2018, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Athol, Idaho
2,182 posts, read 1,055,531 times
Reputation: 3184
Has anyone here ever been in one of these disputes and was it worth your Time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2018, 04:07 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
31,595 posts, read 55,320,924 times
Reputation: 30150
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots. View Post
In Oregon they also ride naked in big groups of people on bikes. And it isn't relevant to my transaction in Idaho
Yeah.
The problem with a national forum is you get most responses from other states.

You might post this in the Idaho forum, where the respondents' laws and rules are more likely to relate to your experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
Similar Threads
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