Purchasing a home with no agent

[Naptowner]

Originally Posted by scgraham

You hit the nail on the head. The buyer is not a party to that contract. The buyer is trying to extract money or savings from the listing agent's legal contract with the seller.

Also, a buyer who would attempt this is fully aware that a contract is in place and in effect between the listing agent and the seller; crying ignorance wouldn't work.

Lastly, as stated by one of the other posters, agents are a dime-a-dozen while buyers are gold; times are tough. Inasmuch, listing agent's might be more apt to exercise their rights in this area to recoup loses. In times past, agents were just moving along with all their business and might not want to hassle with it. There is now more time, and monetary reasons, to delve into these legal issues. I'm sure a listing agent would be seeking more than the lost commission too. Common sense would suggest that there are many attorneys who would accept theses cases on behalf of listing agents.

When you're wrong you're wrong. All the agent has to do is say no. And what are the damages? Even if the agent agreed to split the commission, that's all the agent would get anyway if there were a buyer's agent involved. I can't imagine a scenario in which an agent could agree to split the commission, then successfully sue the buyer to get the commission back. And if the agent says no and the buyer walks away, the contract hasn't been breached and the agent still has the listing. Again, where are the damages?

[London Girl]

Originally Posted by Naptowner

When you're wrong you're wrong. All the agent has to do is say no. And what are the damages? Even if the agent agreed to split the commission, that's all the agent would get anyway if there were a buyer's agent involved. I can't imagine a scenario in which an agent could agree to split the commission, then successfully sue the buyer to get the commission back. And if the agent says no and the buyer walks away, the contract hasn't been breached and the agent still has the listing. Again, where are the damages?

Absolutely.

I personally think the whole "buyer's agent" deal is an appalling waste of money to both buyer and seller alike.

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by London Girl

Absolutely.

I personally think the whole "buyer's agent" deal is an appalling waste of money to both buyer and seller alike.

You must have never shown an out of town buyer 30-50 homes, educated them on the local schools, the good & bad neighborhoods, spent days in a car, paid for a family of 4 lunches, dropped them off at the airport. Then helped them find the right home, make an offer, arrange & meet the inspector and last but not least make sure it all closes on time.

Some people feel a good buyers agent is a great investment.

[London Girl]

Originally Posted by Rakin

You must have never shown an out of town buyer 30-50 homes, educated them on the local schools, the good & bad neighborhoods, spent days in a car, paid for a family of 4 lunches, dropped them off at the airport. Then helped them find the right home, make an offer, arrange & meet the inspector and last but not least make sure it all closes on time.

Some people feel a good buyers agent is a great investment.

Maybe they do but I'm not one of them.

[Naptowner]

Originally Posted by Rakin

You must have never shown an out of town buyer 30-50 homes, educated them on the local schools, the good & bad neighborhoods, spent days in a car, paid for a family of 4 lunches, dropped them off at the airport. Then helped them find the right home, make an offer, arrange & meet the inspector and last but not least make sure it all closes on time.

Some people feel a good buyers agent is a great investment.

It can be, and in that scenario it's worth it. It's different, though, if you're already familiar with the area and the schools, you know where you want to live, and you've bought a house before. In that situation it can be hard to justify the fees, especially now that it's so easy to search MLS listings online.

[scgraham]

Here's a good read from Realty Times about material facts that should be disclosed and the potential of liability for any party that harms another through deceit, manipulations and/or incompetence.

As with most legal issues, there are varying opinions; only the courts can determine if there are damages due another party. I suggest getting multiple opinions on any legal matter.

As an example, I had a closing attorney tell me that a rebate of commission had to be handled in such a way that it precluded disclosure on the HUD-1 form; he called it a kick-back. I certainly did accept his opinion and demanded that said disclosure be made, insomuch as it could be deemed as mortgage fraud. He only conceded after I proved my point about the necessity of disclosure.

Home buyer & sellers need not to accept just anyone's opinion; that includes agents, loan officers, lenders, attorneys, real estate investors and so forth. Consult with those who have proven themselves to be diligent & trustworthy.

[Austin-Willy]

Originally Posted by scgraham

As with most legal issues, there are varying opinions; only the courts can determine if there are damages due another party. I suggest getting multiple opinions on any legal matter.

I think attorneys who are not only familiar with the elements of a tort (such as tortious interference) but who can list them and provide citations to legal publications which confirm those elements, have much more credibility than non-lawyers who (a) have a personal interest in preventing the public from taking certain actions (such as renegotiating commission agreements), and (b) do not know the elements of the tort, but have an opinion of what those elements should be.

With respect to your claim that only a court can determine damages, part of the job of an attorney, and a significant portion of the education and training, is identifying damages. Your statement is akin to someone saying that only a buyer can determine if a house is priced correctly, so sellers shouldn't have any faith in an agent's advice about price.

[London Girl]

Originally Posted by Naptowner

It can be, and in that scenario it's worth it. It's different, though, if you're already familiar with the area and the schools, you know where you want to live, and you've bought a house before. In that situation it can be hard to justify the fees, especially now that it's so easy to search MLS listings online.

Agreed - for an entirely new state or city. Although I'd probably rent for a few months before starting to look at properties to buy.