Amusing counter offer

[CouponJack]

Gretchen I agree 100% w/what you said. When I said "do anything to get the deal done", that could mean buying a similar home in the same neighborhood...

It all goes together...

[DavePautsch]

Captain Bill...Multiple REP points for your last post in this thread. The system wouldn't let me give 'em...but you deserve many kudos for a well thought out, well stated comment. :Tipping my hat:

[palmcoasting]

Sooooo....what happened?? Inquiring minds want to know!

[2bindenver]

We have an appointment for Saturday to continue looking.

I cannot ask my buyers to pay over fair market value in this market, just so I can get paid.

We made an offer on house #4, and it went under contract the same day, with someone else.

Part of what I do is to help nice people find the best property on the market for them to have and hold. Maybe, we haven't found "it" yet.

[SacramentoBound]

I'm surprised at the amount of finger-wagging in this thread. There's nothing shameful about a buyer wanting to save money, any more than it's shameful for an agent to want to earn a full commission.

Captain Bill drew an analogy to your boss asking you to take a "discounted" wage. But the relationship between a real estate broker and a buyer or seller is very different from that between an employer and employee. On one hand, we have a contractor-client relationship, based on the completion of a distinct task (in this case, a real property transaction). Pay is guaranteed only on completion of this task, and since the completion of the task is not guaranteed, neither is the pay. Once the task is completed, the contract is fulfilled and any further business relationships is distinct and separable.

On the other hand, we have an employer-employee relationship, based on the promise of regular employment and regular compensation. This is an open-ended relationship, in contrast to the contractor-client relationship. While there are generally specific and identifiable tasks involved in regular employment, the relationship does not terminate when a distinct task (or set of tasks) has been completed, and at least some "base" pay is not contingent on same. An employee has a reasonable expectation of continued employment, whether over a certain period (temporary hire) or indefinitely (permanent hire), during which time employee also has a legal right to regular compensation for work performed, as opposed to task(s) completed. If you're on a flexible schedule and you aren't getting any shifts, you don't get compensation; but neither are you performing any work. If you perform work poorly or completely ineffectually, you may be fired, but you will still be compensated for your time. These differences (and more) between the employer-employee relationship and the contractor-client relationship are reflected in the different legal protections afforded each party in each situation.

I can certainly see why brokers, buyers and sellers might be insulted by suggestions that they should pay more or receive less. People can be very attached to their money. But I think it's important not to be constrained by ideas about what the nature of the relationship should be. By all means, be guided by your ideals, and be aware of any legal constraints that exist, but apart from that I don't see why we shouldn't all agree that an open mind, flexibility, and the willingness to explore alternatives are anything but beneficial to either an employer-employee relationship or a contractor-client relationship.

Keeping in mind of course that being open-minded does not preclude rejecting alternatives after reasonable consideration! (The key being "reasonable"—for the hypothetical scenario where an employer says he or she "deserves" to pay you less money, the threshold for what's reasonable is probably set somewhere around the time it takes for a few choice words to travel from the brain to the mouth.)