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.
4. AS A TRANSACTION BROKER, I, AS A LICENSEE, DO NOT REPRESENT EITHER THE
BUYER OR THE SELLER. ALL INFORMATION I ACQUIRE FROM ONE PARTY MAY BE TOLD
TO THE OTHER PARTY.
This is what happens when one declines to execute a buyer's agency agreement in NJ. I am thinking the OP likely agreed to this relationship without understanding the potential consequences. I am thinking the agent did not explain it.
Again screw the law. We need to go above and beyond, not take advantage of people because we can. Too many agents look to the law to circumscribe their ethics. The law be damned and the law is a de minimis. Let's do better. Let's not hose people. Why? Because we know we would not want to be hosed. The stated principal of real estate ethics is supposed to be the Golden Rule. Let's consider that.
And implied agency is not in the law. Implied agency is established in litigation when an agent acts like their is agency and conveys expectations of agency without the actual contract. Implied agency is a legal concept, not a statutory concept.
1-You're assuming the conversation that took place. All we know for a fact is that agency was presented and the customer said no. It is merely speculation that disclosure and customer vs. client obligations were or weren't discussed at this point.
2-I don't know your contract and state laws so I'll go by mine. In the above circumstances I would have not showed the home without an agency agreement...however since we went down that road if an agent did do that in my state...At first contact agency laws should be disclosed and the buyer presented an opportunity to sign an agency agreement and become a client. The customer makes an informed decision to remain a customer. Said customer is then shown a house and makes an offer as a customer with full disclosure that the agent is not their agent. There is a customer box and a client box to check on the contract. In this instance the agent should check customer.
If said customer now starts to reveal information to the agent, and that agent is the subagent of the seller, does the agent have the duty to disclose the information to the seller? Is it ethical if the agent hides information from the seller now?
3-An agent saying "screw the laws"...that's going to go over real well. Hey clients...I'm here and I play by own rules. Damn you and your state "rules". It's the same thing when agents don't disclose or whatever. Hey guys...I think murder isn't unethical if it's a bad person and I think John Doe over there isn't a good person so it's alright if I go kill him. Seriously, it's a ludicrous example but where do you draw the line and how do you get to be the one deciding what laws are okay to follow and which ones aren't?
ok so how do I do that in a nice way (fire her) and 2 what should I do about the home I currently have the offer on? I do like it alot but after doing more research on the comps I don't think I want to move too much from my initial offer, considering the seller now knows what I want to pay at max should I just walk away from this house?
You've got a REAL crappy realtor who is not working for YOU. I'd absolutely fire the realtor and get one who is working for YOU and YOU'RE best interest. No true realtor is going to show the hand of their client before the real negotiations even starts. When I fired the realtor, I'd be very professional but also honest. This realtor may be new to the field and needs to know that what he/she did is NOT the way to do business. JMO
You've got a REAL crappy realtor who is not working for YOU. I'd absolutely fire the realtor and get one who is working for YOU and YOU'RE best interest. No true realtor is going to show the hand of their client before the real negotiations even starts. When I fired the realtor, I'd be very professional but also honest. This realtor may be new to the field and needs to know that what he/she did is NOT the way to do business. JMO
Seriously? You're not serious, are you?
The OP has all but confirmed that there was no agent/client relationship.
You've got a REAL crappy realtor who is not working for YOU. I'd absolutely fire the realtor and get one who is working for YOU and YOU'RE best interest. No true realtor is going to show the hand of their client before the real negotiations even starts. When I fired the realtor, I'd be very professional but also honest. This realtor may be new to the field and needs to know that what he/she did is NOT the way to do business. JMO
Read the thread...that's it exactly-the agent is not the buyers agent and is not working for them as a result.
There's an echo echo echo in in in here here here.....
Amazing, people who readily hold themselves free from responsibility for reading threads or understanding the issues are QUITE free and easy with irrelevant or mistargeted advice.
In my opinion, I think the OP should obtain a new agent for the following reasons:
1. If a sub-agency did exist by not signing a buyer's agreement, then the agent was unethical in not [B
clearly [/b]disclosing the fiduciary responsibility which existed once an offer was made without said signed agreement.
2. If sub-agency did not exist, it was unethical to disclose private information to the selling agent putting the OP at a disadvantage in negotiations.
Either way, get rid of the agent and find someone who will clearly and legally work for you OP. If you want the house still, you can tell the agent you want to sign a buyer's agreement for this house only and then proceed to tell the agent exactly how much you want to pay. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't, and move on from both the house and the agent. If you do get the house, your agent gets paid for this house only but I would not recommend this agent to anyone else.
A possible issue with firing the agent at this point is that they can easily demonstrate that they brought the prospective buyer and seller together and actively participated in an offer. If the buyer completes a contract, the agent has a legal claim that their actions contributed to the sale and they have in fact earned the commission, even if another agent interferes and brings new terms or efforts to the negotiation. He may end up on the hook for two commissions, the listing commission earned by the sellers agent(s) AND his new BUYERS agent.
The OP has all but confirmed that there was no agent/client relationship.
But we also do not know if the agent disclosed the ramifications of not signing that agreement. There's been assumptions on the part of many agents on this thread as well.
Bottom line, the agent should have disclosed the ramifications of not signing the buyer's agent agreement and if he/she did so and the OP still went ahead, then the fault lies with the OP. However, I think if the agent did not disclose the ramifications of not signing the agreement, it speaks to the kind of agent this is and thus this agent does deserve scorn in my opinion. In that case, we're not talking about legal/illegal but rather a poor way to do business.
A possible issue with firing the agent at this point is that they can easily demonstrate that they brought the prospective buyer and seller together and actively participated in an offer. If the buyer completes a contract, the agent has a legal claim that their actions contributed to the sale and they have in fact earned the commission, even if another agent interferes and brings new terms or efforts to the negotiation. He may end up on the hook for two commissions, the listing commission earned by the sellers agent(s) AND his new BUYERS agent.
That was made on the assumption the OP would be passing on this particular house as my second statement further enumerated what should be done if the OP wanted to continue with this house purchase. However, I find it interesting the agent would be entitled to the commission without a contract but the OP would not be entitled to representation as a client without a contract and all that entails (e.g. fiduciary responsibility).
But we also do not know if the agent disclosed the ramifications of not signing that agreement. There's been assumptions on the part of many agents on this thread as well.
Bottom line, the agent should have disclosed the ramifications of not signing the buyer's agent agreement and if he/she did so and the OP still went ahead, then the fault lies with the OP. However, I think if the agent did not disclose the ramifications of not signing the agreement, it speaks to the kind of agent this is and thus this agent does deserve scorn in my opinion. In that case, we're not talking about legal/illegal but rather a poor way to do business.
So...
Let's agree that posters should avoid basing dull posts on unfounded attitudes and poorly drawn conclusions of what they do not know and do not understand.
If if if is fine.
Saying the OP was a client is silly.
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.
