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.
yes, obviously it's not the buyer's responsibility but rather the buyer's agent's responsibility.
Per the NAR, MLS is based on the principle: "Help me sell my inventory and I'll help you sell yours." All per required language of the Department of Justice Settlement.
Not sure what you're trying to say but it's all very clear.
There you go again. It was very obvious from oldtrader's post that he left out a word. If you'd just read his following sentence in context that should have made it very clear.
Oldtrader's explanation was spot on:
"The buyers agent is responsible for helping the buyer find a home that will meet their needs, and to protect the buyer to their best ability."
Can't we enjoy a nice porn thread without you derailing it?
yes, obviously it's not the buyer's responsibility but rather the buyer's agent's responsibility.
Per the NAR, MLS is based on the principle: "Help me sell my inventory and I'll help you sell yours." All per required language of the Department of Justice Settlement.
Not sure what you're trying to say but it's all very clear.
You are working as a team to sell real estate, however you are working for and protecting the interest of your client who if you are a buyers agent, you are to work for your buyers best interest. In most states, you will have signed a contract that you are working for your client and representing the clients best interest. You as a buyers agent work to protect and represent their interest, the same as the sellers agent is to work for and represent the best interest of the seller.
For the easiest to understand link, go to page 7. This is by a Realtor, but it says in very few words how a buyers agent is to represent the buyer. It says what I learned in real estate agency law classes at a major university, classes I have attended by other sources including NAR. As the university professor said, that real estate agency laws follow the same pattern as attorneys are required to follow.. If both sides are represented by an attorney, then their attorney is required to work for their clients best interest. In real estate and buyer and seller are represented by an agent, then each agent is required to work for their clients best interest just as the attorneys work for their clients best interest. This means if the agent knows something about a property that would be a negative factor and keep the buyer from buying it, the buyers agent has to reveal it to their client. If they do not, and the buyer finds it out after closisng, they can report it to the state licensinjg agency, and that can cost the agent their license. They cn report it to their State Association of Realtors, and it can cost them their Realtors license. They can sue the agent and the office he/she works for, and it can cost them a big cash award, and cost them their license. I have seen all three happen to other Realtors when in the business, and every time they lost.
There you go again. It was very obvious from oldtrader's post that he left out a word. If you'd just read his following sentence in context that should have made it very clear.
Oldtrader's explanation was spot on:
"The buyers agent is responsible for helping the buyer find a home that will meet their needs, and to protect the buyer to their best ability."
Can't we enjoy a nice porn thread without you derailing it?
I did not disagree with the statement: "The buyers agent is responsible for helping the buyer find a home that will meet their needs, and to protect the buyer to their best ability."
I disagreed with oldtrader's statement: "It is not the buyers responsibility to help the seller's agent sell the house."
oldtrader wisely has since corrected himself to now acknowledge: "You are working as a team to sell real estate" ("you" presumably meaning the buyer's agent and the seller's agent. This is correct.
It is misleading, misrepresentation, and incorrect for any agent to deny that the buyer's agent and seller's agent are cooperating to sell the house. The principle of:
"Help me sell my inventory and I'll help you sell yours." is fundamental to the MLS model and this exact language is on the formal US Department of Justice settlement pages. You've tried to deny this by saying people should not believe everything on the internet or that formal NAR/DoJ statements are 'lies' and I believe your statements may be fraudulent misrepresentation. Presumably you've been trained and are responsible for understanding the principles of your industry so to deny basic principles can only be seen as an attempt to fraudulently mislead consumers as to the fundamentals of the industry.
Notice that I'm not arguing that a buyer's agent is not legally bound to represent the interest of the buyer.
If you have the right skills of articulation, you can explain to us how a buyer's agent helping a sellers agent to sell a house marries up with the legal requirement to represent the buyer.
You are working as a team to sell real estate, however you are working for and protecting the interest of your client who if you are a buyers agent, you are to work for your buyers best interest. In most states, you will have signed a contract that you are working for your client and representing the clients best interest. You as a buyers agent work to protect and represent their interest, the same as the sellers agent is to work for and represent the best interest of the seller.
For the easiest to understand link, go to page 7. This is by a Realtor, but it says in very few words how a buyers agent is to represent the buyer. It says what I learned in real estate agency law classes at a major university, classes I have attended by other sources including NAR. As the university professor said, that real estate agency laws follow the same pattern as attorneys are required to follow.. If both sides are represented by an attorney, then their attorney is required to work for their clients best interest. In real estate and buyer and seller are represented by an agent, then each agent is required to work for their clients best interest just as the attorneys work for their clients best interest. This means if the agent knows something about a property that would be a negative factor and keep the buyer from buying it, the buyers agent has to reveal it to their client. If they do not, and the buyer finds it out after closisng, they can report it to the state licensinjg agency, and that can cost the agent their license. They cn report it to their State Association of Realtors, and it can cost them their Realtors license. They can sue the agent and the office he/she works for, and it can cost them a big cash award, and cost them their license. I have seen all three happen to other Realtors when in the business, and every time they lost.
I do not dispute that the buyer's agent is legally bound to represent the buyer and I understand everything you are saying. However, it is not part of the legal/attorney model to be working in cooperation and helping the attorney on the other side so I do not agree that they are the same.
By the way, your linked guide says explicitly that the buyer's agent is: "NO COST TO YOU" ("you" meaning the buyer in this context). This is misleading and I know at least some agents on this board (rightly) have voiced strong disagreement with misleading consumers to believe that the buyer's agent is "free".
I'm not an agent and this is not my industry so it's not my problem to try to marry up: "Help me sell my inventory and I'll help you sell yours." with a legal requirement to represent the buyer. All I can do is comment on how screwy it is and how the model makes no sense. Nobody seems to have the skills and understanding to explain how these concepts can be aligned. Until someone can, we will have "there you go again".
It is misleading, misrepresentation, and incorrect for any agent to deny that the buyer's agent and seller's agent are cooperating to sell the house. The principle of:
"Help me sell my inventory and I'll help you sell yours." is fundamental to the MLS model and this exact language is on the formal US Department of Justice settlement pages. You've tried to deny this by saying people should not believe everything on the internet or that formal NAR/DoJ statements are 'lies' and I believe your statements may be fraudulent misrepresentation. Presumably you've been trained and are responsible for understanding the principles of your industry so to deny basic principles can only be seen as an attempt to fraudulently mislead consumers as to the fundamentals of the industry.
Notice that I'm not arguing that a buyer's agent is not legally bound to represent the interest of the buyer.
If you have the right skills of articulation, you can explain to us how a buyer's agent helping a sellers agent to sell a house marries up with the legal requirement to represent the buyer.
Please, knock it off. You shouldn't be making libelous statements however anonymous you feel that you are. You really misinterpret things if you didn't realize that my comment about "don't believe everything you read on the internet" was only a lighthearted one. And I never called any NAR or DoJ statements "lies".
When I wrote "There you go again", I was referring, in part, to your penchant for derailing threads. I'm done helping you on this one. Surely you have better things to do. Have a good day.
Please, knock it off. You shouldn't be making libelous statements however anonymous you feel that you are. You really misinterpret things if you didn't realize that my comment about "don't believe everything you read on the internet" was only a lighthearted one. And I never called any NAR or DoJ statements "lies".
When I wrote "There you go again", I was referring, in part, to your penchant for derailing threads. I'm done helping you on this one. Surely you have better things to do. Have a good day.
"Misinterpretation" might be sloppy language as it might carry a connotation of honest effort or intellectual integrity.
So ridiculous! We rented houses in the Malibu Colony, a couple of summers, as a prelude to buying a homesite in Malibu. It proved an effective networking ploy. We made a good many friends. One night, the conversation turned to houses used as porn locations. Everybody could name several, and a couple of people (who also owned houses in the Hollywood/Beverly/Bel Air hills), could name films or bodybuilders that had been filmed/photographed in their own homes, before they bought them.
Basically, if you have an interesting-looking older home in the LA area (20s - 80s), chances are, it's been used for a porn shoot. People have been renting (or lending) exotic-looking homes, since the early days of the industry. Frequently, photos taken by Gay "Physique Photographers", have turned out to be the best documentation of a lot of the more spectacular old LA estates, with their original landscaping. The skuzzier "Jetsons/Brady Bunch" looking homes, were rented/lent for the skuzzier porn productions.
And on the OTHER coast (Atlantic), the current revival and study of Minimalist Modernist beach architecture, has been aided by all the porn shoots at Fire Island houses. People keep the films. People keep the photos. I'm not sure WHY someone would bother to replicate the original linoleum, when restoring a 70s beach house. But they CAN, because there it is, under that body-part close-up detail of "Roger" - in a darkroom-made original photo from somebody's treasured personal collection.
As for the "Wifey" series... In our three decades of sporadic searching (as in, every few years, when we're stuck in a hotel room, and bored out of our minds), "Wifey" is practically the ONLY erotic product that we haven't found to be unspeakably tacky and repulsive. Basically, it's a decent-looking mature woman, doing NORMAL things, with her spectacular muscle-bull of a husband. I'm glad to know his name: OTTERSON. Sexy.... A big, massive Scandinavian. For me, his having been in the house, would be an enhancement, rather than a negative.
i always thought that all states had blue laws that outlawed pornography comparing it to prostitution. the exception being l.a. where porn is produced ?
I've often wondered if our home wasn't used for porn shoots. We got it in a short sale during the meltdown. The street-facing exterior is normal looking but the interior was ridiculously overdone with an addition that created a huge master bedroom that was vaulted with 6 lighting configurations and a nearby oversized hottub and romanesque tiled walk in shower. It matches a backyard exterior with columns and some amazing brickwork.
Regardless the place is great and was a hell of a buy. The only problem is there's some neighborhood services are pretty sub-par. Pizza delivery, plumbers, maid service...none seemed to have the slightest clue as to what they were doing...which is probably why they couldn't afford appropriate uniforms.
Please, knock it off. You shouldn't be making libelous statements however anonymous you feel that you are. You really misinterpret things if you didn't realize that my comment about "don't believe everything you read on the internet" was only a lighthearted one. And I never called any NAR or DoJ statements "lies".
When I wrote "There you go again", I was referring, in part, to your penchant for derailing threads. I'm done helping you on this one. Surely you have better things to do. Have a good day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
"Misinterpretation" might be sloppy language as it might carry a connotation of honest effort or intellectual integrity.
Clearly, you need to manage your expectations.
'Intellectual integrity' is standing by your words or correcting/clarifying them. This speaks for itself.
If it allows you to save face by simply saying you were 'lighthearted' or joking around then sure. Let's say you were just trying to be funny. i can live with that.
At least we've made progress with you apparently no longer denying a fundamental principle of your own industry. It was shocking and horrifying to see you making statements that are misleading for consumers on a public forum. I guess trying to be funny is more important than straight and correct information for consumers and being a responsible professional.
Consumers can and should rely on formal statements made by the NAR in their DoJ settlement information pages. They should be able to do so without the confusion of licensed agents suggesting that it's incorrect information or untrue or just written by an intern or whatever. I suggest that you choose other things to joke around about. Hint: anything with 'Department of Justice' in it is probably not good joking around material. Professionals with good judgment understand this.
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.
