advice please regarding vacant lot purchase (agents, commissions, property, claim)
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.
No, it would not be appropriate. If a prospective buyer found a property because it was listed on the MLS by an agent...then they found it because of that agent..the agent is entitled to the commission for their work. The agent did their job. If there is an agreement that the seller must pay the agent a commission within x time of the expiration of their contract and a client comes in during the contract period or during that x time after, and the seller deliberately hides that fact and intentionally waits for said contract and said time after expiration to sell the property, that is immoral and unethical.
No, it would not be appropriate. If a prospective buyer found a property because it was listed on the MLS by an agent...then they found it because of that agent..the agent is entitled to the commission for their work. The agent did their job. If there is an agreement that the seller must pay the agent a commission within x time of the expiration of their contract and a client comes in during the contract period or during that x time after, and the seller deliberately hides that fact and intentionally waits for said contract and said time after expiration to sell the property, that is immoral and unethical.
It'd be inappropriate if the person looking for property had signed a contract or agreement with the buyers agent to buy through the agent. If the person buying hasn't agreed to a contract, they're not obligated to work with the buyers agent. Perhaps expected but not obligated by any contract or legal document.
In this case, that agent declined to deliver an offer to the seller. That should release the OP from working with that agent, although it depends on the terms of the contract that he has with the buyers agent.
No, it would not be appropriate. If a prospective buyer found a property because it was listed on the MLS by an agent...then they found it because of that agent..the agent is entitled to the commission for their work. The agent did their job. If there is an agreement that the seller must pay the agent a commission within x time of the expiration of their contract and a client comes in during the contract period or during that x time after, and the seller deliberately hides that fact and intentionally waits for said contract and said time after expiration to sell the property, that is immoral and unethical.
If it is not prohibited by the terms of the listing agreement, there is nothing immoral or unethical about it. The listing agreement is the listing agreement. 9 times out of 10 they are extremely one-sided in favor of the broker. If a seller is able to comply with the terms of the listing agreement and still sell their home without paying a commission, they have every right to do so.
It'd be inappropriate if the person looking for property had signed a contract or agreement with the buyers agent to buy through the agent. If the person buying hasn't agreed to a contract, they're not obligated to work with the buyers agent. Perhaps expected but not obligated by any contract or legal document.
In this case, that agent declined to deliver an offer to the seller. That should release the OP from working with that agent, although it depends on the terms of the contract that he has with the buyers agent.
I'm talking about the SELLING agent...NOT the buyer's agent. I never said the OP is obligated to go with the agent they wanted to submit an offer.
I said its unethical for the SELLER to go behind their LISTING AGENT to negotiate a deal.
I'm talking about the SELLING agent...NOT the buyer's agent. I never said the OP is obligated to go with the agent they wanted to submit an offer.
I said its unethical for the SELLER to go behind their LISTING AGENT to negotiate a deal.
Negotiating a deal while the property is under contract with a listing agent would be unethical.
I don't think saying "I'm contracted with an agent right now, but let's talk in November after the contract has expired" would be unethical. Your not negotiating, your just saying that you are open to conversation in the future.
Remember, the property has been listed for a year with no movement. Either the seller is being stubborn on price or listing agent is ineffective at selling the property. Either way it's time for a change.
Negotiating a deal while the property is under contract with a listing agent would be unethical.
Not necessarily. There are such things as non-exclusive listing agreements. As a matter of fact, I have a client who negotiated a non-exclusive listing agreement this year. The broker has a very specific clientele that he markets to, and my client wanted to preserve the ability to sell to others without paying a commission.
The bottom line is that the listing agreement tells you what is permitted and what is not permitted.
Negotiating a deal while the property is under contract with a listing agent would be unethical.
I don't think saying "I'm contracted with an agent right now, but let's talk in November after the contract has expired" would be unethical. Your not negotiating, your just saying that you are open to conversation in the future.
Remember, the property has been listed for a year with no movement. Either the seller is being stubborn on price or listing agent is ineffective at selling the property. Either way it's time for a change.
First, no movement, means it hasn't been sold, yes. But you nor the prospective buyer has any idea why. The seller could be holding firm to their price (or stubborn as you call it..there goes that buyer's holier than thou attitude). It doesn't mean the agent is ineffective. There must be a reason why the seller has stuck with their agent for a year. Or have they? The OP said the property was on the market for a year. They did not say if it was on with the same agent the entire time. Maybe change has already taken place.
Second. if the seller is saying "let's talk" in November...they are skirting their obligation to the agent they signed on with and made an agreement with. It most certainly is unethical.
Are you saying the seller should say, I am not open to discussions now because I obligated myself to pay a commission, but I'll discuss it with you when I'm no longer obligated even though you were brought to me because of the person I had an agreement with in the first place? You really can't be saying that and mean it, can you?
The seller could be holding firm to their price (or stubborn as you call it..there goes that buyer's holier than thou attitude).
I think stubborn is an excellent word to describe sellers that refuse to lower the price of the property even when prospective buyers show little interest. It's not because I have a holier than thou attitude, I just think people that refuse to recognize the current market are stubborn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamitrail
Are you saying the seller should say, I am not open to discussions now because I obligated myself to pay a commission, but I'll discuss it with you when I'm no longer obligated even though you were brought to me because of the person I had an agreement with in the first place? You really can't be saying that and mean it, can you?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Real estate contracts are for finite lengths of time (and for good reason). You may wish to sell it on your own. You may wish to change agents (as you suggested). You may wish to change commission rates. There's a lot of things you may wish to change over time. So after the contract expires, you're free to do what you want with your land.
My strategy treats the listing agent fairly. If the real estate agent brings forth a full-price offer before the contract is over, the landowner is obligated to accept the offer. So the impetus is on the real estate agent to bring forth an offer prior to the expiration of the contract.
The key thing here is that the landowner can't engage in negoitations until the contract is expired. There's nothing wrong "lets talk in November after the contract expires." But to sign an agreement that says "I will sell you the property on November 1st for $155,000" while the selling rights have been contracted out is wrong.
If you're a real estate and concerned that your clients may do this, the best way to protect yourself is to write the appropriate contract that protects your interests. Or work hard at selling before the listing time is up so there isn't a question to begin with.
I think stubborn is an excellent word to describe sellers that refuse to lower the price of the property even when prospective buyers show little interest. It's not because I have a holier than thou attitude, I just think people that refuse to recognize the current market are stubborn.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Real estate contracts are for finite lengths of time (and for good reason). You may wish to sell it on your own. You may wish to change agents (as you suggested). You may wish to change commission rates. There's a lot of things you may wish to change over time. So after the contract expires, you're free to do what you want with your land.
My strategy treats the listing agent fairly. If the real estate agent brings forth a full-price offer before the contract is over, the landowner is obligated to accept the offer. So the impetus is on the real estate agent to bring forth an offer prior to the expiration of the contract.
The key thing here is that the landowner can't engage in negoitations until the contract is expired. There's nothing wrong "lets talk in November after the contract expires." But to sign an agreement that says "I will sell you the property on November 1st for $155,000" while the selling rights have been contracted out is wrong.
If you're a real estate and concerned that your clients may do this, the best way to protect yourself is to write the appropriate contract that protects your interests. Or work hard at selling before the listing time is up so there isn't a question to begin with.
I generally agree with you. But I wouldn't advise signing a listing agreement that requires the seller to sell their house if the agent brings in a full-price offer. There are just too many scenarios where this could come back to bite you.
I know agents are not going to like this, because they want some comfort that if they do their job they will get paid. But the relationship takes some trust on both sides. After all, the seller is trusting that the agent is going to be out there actively marketing his property, and he could just as easily get burnt if the agent doesn't do his job. At the end of the day, it is very important for the seller to retain the right to consider and accept or reject all offers.
I think stubborn is an excellent word to describe sellers that refuse to lower the price of the property even when prospective buyers show little interest. It's not because I have a holier than thou attitude, I just think people that refuse to recognize the current market are stubborn.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Real estate contracts are for finite lengths of time (and for good reason). You may wish to sell it on your own. You may wish to change agents (as you suggested). You may wish to change commission rates. There's a lot of things you may wish to change over time. So after the contract expires, you're free to do what you want with your land.
My strategy treats the listing agent fairly. If the real estate agent brings forth a full-price offer before the contract is over, the landowner is obligated to accept the offer. So the impetus is on the real estate agent to bring forth an offer prior to the expiration of the contract.
The key thing here is that the landowner can't engage in negoitations until the contract is expired. There's nothing wrong "lets talk in November after the contract expires." But to sign an agreement that says "I will sell you the property on November 1st for $155,000" while the selling rights have been contracted out is wrong.
If you're a real estate and concerned that your clients may do this, the best way to protect yourself is to write the appropriate contract that protects your interests. Or work hard at selling before the listing time is up so there isn't a question to begin with.
Most contracts will state that the owner must immediately forward all inquiries regarding the property to the listing agent.
This is to try and avoid the underhanded dealings that you think are fair.
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.
