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.
If so, likely only a court could officially decide, but from a legal dictionary:
tortious interference noun encouraging a breach,infringing on another's agreement,interfering with contract, interfering with contractual commitments, interfering with contractual obligation, interfering with contractual rights,intermeddling, intermeddling with business activities, obstruction, work against anothers contractual relationship, wrongful interference with busiiess relationships, wrongful interference with contractual relationships
You tell me: does requiring in a contract that you propose to one party to a contract that that party change the agreement in the initial contract by paying a portion of what was to be paid to the second party to the initial contract to you fit the bill?
Actually why don't you tell us, since your the one who advising the OP that he is guilty of tortuous interference? Also do you have any case law of a broker prevailing against a buyer for tortious interference when trying to be paid the buyer agent's commission?
Efficiency isn't really that relevant to the buyer or seller(not completely irrelevant, but not crucial either). The primary concern is each's financial benefit of the transaction. As to whether the lack of representation will get the buyer 3% of the price that is up for debate. If the listing is close to expiring and there are no other offers, and no doubt if the listing agent put the breaks on the deal then the seller will not be too happy.....and 6% of 0 is less than 3% of the sales price. And I doubt the seller will object to the listing agent contributing the 3% buyers. Don't think i need your special fax machine for that.
As to your claim that unrepresented buyers will be more likely to cause legal problems during the transaction. Do you have any objective data that suggests unrepresented buyers are more likely to sue or claim fraud? If not this sounds just like a sales pitch for buyers agents...
Wouldn't a hungry listing agent go through the steps to lower the commission rather than risk losing the sale? [Especially if the property had little interest to begin with] A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush....
Wouldn't a hungry listing agent go through the steps to lower the commission rather than risk losing the sale? [Especially if the property had little interest to begin with] A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush....
Some agents will, but it is their choice (or their broker's), not the seller's unless they have a variable commission agreement.
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.
At what point does common sense win out?
