The new NAR rules have actually made buyer agent commissions go up not down
Real Estate Agent · Chicago, IL · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
The new NAR rules have actually made buyer agent commissions go up not down
Most Popular Reply
Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
2yI gave an interview to Axios last December where I predicted that average commission rates were likely to go higher due to due to the likely outcome of the class action suit.
Sure enough, a settlement was announced months later, and sure enough average commissions rates have been inching higher, and will continue to do so.
It is simple supply and demand. The settlement was likely to...and ended up leading to a shrinking labor pool for brokerage services. As the supply of labor shrinks, demand becomes higher, and average costs rise.
District Invest Group545 Reviews
100 Replies
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2y
I never said anything about the seller agent representing the buyer. Because he is a fiduciary to the seller, he CANNOT represent the buyer. He’s not working with the buyer, he’s simply showing the buyer the house, which he agreed - with the seller - to do. Buyer is on his own.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2yYou are absolutely right: I draft my offer and you present it, and then I negotiate with the seller if he’s so inclined. If we close, you collect your 3 percent commission, having done nothing with or for me.
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
Quote from @JD Martin:
Quote from @John Clark:
They represent the seller. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the seller. The best way for the seller to sell for the most money is to have lots of potential buyers look at the property and bid on it. Refusing showings because the agent isn’t getting paid for it is the antithesis of carrying out one’s fiduciary duty to the seller.Quote from @JD Martin:
Quote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
That's my understanding as well, which again brings me back to what is the incentive to sign you up even for just that house? They don't know anything about you, have no proof you can even buy the house; for all they know you could just be casing the place. Without collecting some kind of fee I just don't see the value proposition here.
The value to the agent is that he gets to keep license, and not get sued by his own principal, the seller.I don't think so. I don't think there's going to be a court anywhere that says a seller's agent is required to represent any potential buyer without a fee. That is akin to working for free. Buyers and sellers have one singular common interest (closing a deal) and a number of opposing interests. Besides, what gives you the idea that signing a (free) contract with a perfect stranger is acting in the seller's fiduciary interest? You may not be a buyer at all. You may have no ability whatsoever to purchase the home, and by the agent wasting time with you is shirking or ignoring other duties or opportunities that could result in a sale for the seller. Walking random strangers through a house is not the same thing as acting in the seller's best interest.
In any case, I'm sure there will be plenty of litigation in the coming years that will sort all of this out.
We have unrepresented buyers come to our listings asking us to write their offers all the time. Every single one is shocked when I tell them we charge for that service. I say you can write your own offer on a napkin and I'll present it, but I'm under no obligation to write an offer for you and provide services to you for free.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 17k+ votes2y
Quote from @John Clark:
I never said anything about the seller agent representing the buyer. Because he is a fiduciary to the seller, he CANNOT represent the buyer. He’s not working with the buyer, he’s simply showing the buyer the house, which he agreed - with the seller - to do. Buyer is on his own.
The new rules say the buyer has to be under representation to see the house, so how is s/he viewing the house without signing some kind of contract with the agent? The only way I see it happening is through an open house, which by definition lets anyone walk the house.
Skyline Properties - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2yThe new rules allow for “no agency” relationships, limited to a particular house. Buyer doesn’t pay commission
Quote from @JD Martin:
Quote from @John Clark:
I never said anything about the seller agent representing the buyer. Because he is a fiduciary to the seller, he CANNOT represent the buyer. He’s not working with the buyer, he’s simply showing the buyer the house, which he agreed - with the seller - to do. Buyer is on his own.
The new rules say the buyer has to be under representation to see the house, so how is s/he viewing the house without signing some kind of contract with the agent? The only way I see it happening is through an open house, which by definition lets anyone walk the house.
- Real Estate Broker · Chicago, IL · Member since 2013 · 6k+ posts · 5k+ votes2yA buyers agent agreement can be limited to a single property. You don't have to sign for their exclusive services
Quote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
Second City Real Estate4.821 Reviews - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2yThe good thing is it can be a no agency, "just show," agreement for a particular property. Then I can draft my offer, stating no buyer commission. I'm just waiting for the lawsuits -- by the seller against his agent -- for where the agent breaches his duty to his client (the seller) to show the property because the prospect wouldn't agree to a buyer's agent commission.
Quote from @Brie Schmidt:
A buyers agent agreement can be limited to a single property. You don't have to sign for their exclusive servicesQuote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
- Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes2y
Quote from @John Clark:
The good thing is it can be a no agency, "just show," agreement for a particular property. Then I can draft my offer, stating no buyer commission. I'm just waiting for the lawsuits -- by the seller against his agent -- for where the agent breaches his duty to his client (the seller) to show the property because the prospect wouldn't agree to a buyer's agent commission.Quote from @Brie Schmidt:
A buyers agent agreement can be limited to a single property. You don't have to sign for their exclusive servicesQuote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
That's what open houses are for. Listing agents are not obligated to show properties to anyone that contacts them.
District Invest Group545 Reviews - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2y
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
Quote from @John Clark:
The good thing is it can be a no agency, "just show," agreement for a particular property. Then I can draft my offer, stating no buyer commission. I'm just waiting for the lawsuits -- by the seller against his agent -- for where the agent breaches his duty to his client (the seller) to show the property because the prospect wouldn't agree to a buyer's agent commission.Quote from @Brie Schmidt:
A buyers agent agreement can be limited to a single property. You don't have to sign for their exclusive servicesQuote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
That's what open houses are for. Listing agents are not obligated to show properties to anyone that contacts them.
If the potential viewer is qualified, the agent IS obligated to show. If I have a buyer's agent, then you as a seller's agent think I'm pre-screened, and therefore show. If I want to see and have no buyer's agent, and don't want you to represent me (you have a conflict of interest being the seller's agent) you would have to screen me, and qualify me, and then have me sign a no-agency contract.
If you didn't you breached your fiduciary duty to the seller. Given that I have to have some agreement with you (no agency, limited to property, no commission, just show), there may be anti-trust and restraint of trade issues as well.
What you won't have to do is help me with making an offer, etc. - Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes2y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
Quote from @John Clark:
The good thing is it can be a no agency, "just show," agreement for a particular property. Then I can draft my offer, stating no buyer commission. I'm just waiting for the lawsuits -- by the seller against his agent -- for where the agent breaches his duty to his client (the seller) to show the property because the prospect wouldn't agree to a buyer's agent commission.Quote from @Brie Schmidt:
A buyers agent agreement can be limited to a single property. You don't have to sign for their exclusive servicesQuote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
That's what open houses are for. Listing agents are not obligated to show properties to anyone that contacts them.
If the potential viewer is qualified, the agent IS obligated to show. If I have a buyer's agent, then you as a seller's agent think I'm pre-screened, and therefore show. If I want to see and have no buyer's agent, and don't want you to represent me (you have a conflict of interest being the seller's agent) you would have to screen me, and qualify me, and then have me sign a no-agency contract.
If you didn't you breached your fiduciary duty to the seller. Given that I have to have some agreement with you (no agency, limited to property, no commission, just show), there may be anti-trust and restraint of trade issues as well.
What you won't have to do is help me with making an offer, etc.If you're qualified, you go to the open house.
Providing personal access to potential buyers is not part of the fiduciary duties in any state. Making access available is, thus what an open house is for. Providing personal access is defined as a ministerial act. No states I'm aware of, and I'm a broker in 21, and a salesperson in 2, require the performance of a ministerial act.
In states that have presumed agency, it is in fact then better to not provide a personal showing and request that they attend the open house. This will then eliminate the possibility of creating an unintended presumed agency relationship.
District Invest Group545 Reviews - 2yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
I gave an interview to Axios last December where I predicted that average commission rates were likely to go higher due to due to the likely outcome of the class action suit.
Sure enough, a settlement was announced months later, and sure enough average commissions rates have been inching higher, and will continue to do so.
It is simple supply and demand. The settlement was likely to...and ended up leading to a shrinking labor pool for brokerage services. As the supply of labor shrinks, demand becomes higher, and average costs rise.
so Russ are you not getting listings as the listing agent at 6% ? your new listing fee is something less or a negotiated amount 0 to 6% with 2 to 3 being common.. what happens when you double end of the deals.. ???? U charge the buyer a fee then ? and your listing fee is now 2 to 3% instead of 5 to 6%. ?? I am still signing listings today in the mid west at 5 to 6%.. have not seen a change yet. On my own inventory in Oregon we still offer a BAC of 2% and when the market is hot some builders offer 0 or 5k or like we did 10k flat fee.. for 700 to 1 mil of course I own them so I guess I have the right to do that .. - 2yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @John Clark:
The good thing is it can be a no agency, "just show," agreement for a particular property. Then I can draft my offer, stating no buyer commission. I'm just waiting for the lawsuits -- by the seller against his agent -- for where the agent breaches his duty to his client (the seller) to show the property because the prospect wouldn't agree to a buyer's agent commission.Quote from @Brie Schmidt:
A buyers agent agreement can be limited to a single property. You don't have to sign for their exclusive servicesQuote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
John this is an interesting point.. - Real Estate Agent · Chicago, IL · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes2y
I believe when buyer has no realtor we will still get both sides. I cannot see any of my seller clients saying no to that and I don’t know any realtor that would represent or write up an offer for a buyer for free.
- Real Estate Agent · Chicago, IL · Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2y
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
I gave an interview to Axios last December where I predicted that average commission rates were likely to go higher due to due to the likely outcome of the class action suit.
Sure enough, a settlement was announced months later, and sure enough average commissions rates have been inching higher, and will continue to do so.
It is simple supply and demand. The settlement was likely to...and ended up leading to a shrinking labor pool for brokerage services. As the supply of labor shrinks, demand becomes higher, and average costs rise.
This is what I suspected would happen given the amount of agents that have left the industry over the last few years along with the agents that will leave over this settlement. To @Brie Schmidt's point, I would also expect average commissions to increase particularly for investor-friendly agents because they bring more value to the table such as off-market opportunities, preferred vendors & contractors, analysis and guidance on making wise investment decisions. For the right opportunities I could see investor-friendly demanding 2.5% - 3.5%+ and getting it. In an era of low inventory, high inflation & mortgages rates, and strong competition, good investment opportunities become more scarce.
- Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes2y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
I gave an interview to Axios last December where I predicted that average commission rates were likely to go higher due to due to the likely outcome of the class action suit.
Sure enough, a settlement was announced months later, and sure enough average commissions rates have been inching higher, and will continue to do so.
It is simple supply and demand. The settlement was likely to...and ended up leading to a shrinking labor pool for brokerage services. As the supply of labor shrinks, demand becomes higher, and average costs rise.
so Russ are you not getting listings as the listing agent at 6% ? your new listing fee is something less or a negotiated amount 0 to 6% with 2 to 3 being common.. what happens when you double end of the deals.. ???? U charge the buyer a fee then ? and your listing fee is now 2 to 3% instead of 5 to 6%. ?? I am still signing listings today in the mid west at 5 to 6%.. have not seen a change yet. On my own inventory in Oregon we still offer a BAC of 2% and when the market is hot some builders offer 0 or 5k or like we did 10k flat fee.. for 700 to 1 mil of course I own them so I guess I have the right to do that ..
I personally, being on the NAR Board, at multiples levels of the organization, and being heavily involved on the lobbying/legal side have been way ahead of the curve on this stuff.
We are about a year ahead of everyone else on our procedures. We offer sellers 2 options generally.
Option A - Traditional Package. This is at X%, and we offer a buyer agent a set %.
Option B - We charge Y% which only includes our fee. We do not make any unilateral offer of compensation to buyers agents. Buyers are still free to include in their offers a term that we pay their buyers agent. We also charge an additional Z% for unrepresented buyers to handle coordinating the contract to close on their side.
Additionally, and Ive done this for years, we charge unrepresented buyers to perform ministerial acts. We have a fee schedule of services for this such as, write their offer, provide access for inspection, etc.About 50% if our sales are off market...both on the buy and sell side. So without the MLS/Compensation being offered, really all we are doing differently then is taking our off MLS procedures and applying them to on MLS deals now.
With the decrease is licensee count, we have seen average commissions generally rising. Our average commission rate is up about 15% from a year ago. (15% rise in the commission rate, not that the 15% is the percentage of the sales price. Just as an example for those reading, if a commission rate were 10%, and rose to 11%, that increase of 1%...is a rise of 10%. These are not actual commission rates, just used as an example to explain the math.)
This also pertains to our DC/MD/VA/PA business. The other states we do business in have completely different structures.
District Invest Group545 Reviews - 2yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @Henry Lazerow:
I believe when buyer has no realtor we will still get both sides. I cannot see any of my seller clients saying no to that and I don’t know any realtor that would represent or write up an offer for a buyer for free.
so you have for instance a 3% listing contract then when you double end it you write in another 3% to represent the buyer ? and its going to be a debit from seller right ? My wifes brokerage in Oregon only allows her to do dual agency other agents not allowed since we are the owners of all our deals although they still let her double end her listings which is not an often. If she does have a listing of a property we dont own she encourages other agents to sell them for her given her work load.. She sells about 25 to 30 million a year and she does not have a team its just her and a VERY good Transaction coordinator who is paid per deal a set fee..
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 17k+ votes2yThanks Russell, this is what I thought was the situation. How would anyone know if the guy is qualified without having a relationship with him? The bottom line is that there's going to be a lot of sad buyers out there who want to participate but not pay, like Mr. Clark above.
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
Quote from @John Clark:
The good thing is it can be a no agency, "just show," agreement for a particular property. Then I can draft my offer, stating no buyer commission. I'm just waiting for the lawsuits -- by the seller against his agent -- for where the agent breaches his duty to his client (the seller) to show the property because the prospect wouldn't agree to a buyer's agent commission.Quote from @Brie Schmidt:
A buyers agent agreement can be limited to a single property. You don't have to sign for their exclusive servicesQuote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
That's what open houses are for. Listing agents are not obligated to show properties to anyone that contacts them.
If the potential viewer is qualified, the agent IS obligated to show. If I have a buyer's agent, then you as a seller's agent think I'm pre-screened, and therefore show. If I want to see and have no buyer's agent, and don't want you to represent me (you have a conflict of interest being the seller's agent) you would have to screen me, and qualify me, and then have me sign a no-agency contract.
If you didn't you breached your fiduciary duty to the seller. Given that I have to have some agreement with you (no agency, limited to property, no commission, just show), there may be anti-trust and restraint of trade issues as well.
What you won't have to do is help me with making an offer, etc.If you're qualified, you go to the open house.
Providing personal access to potential buyers is not part of the fiduciary duties in any state. Making access available is, thus what an open house is for. Providing personal access is defined as a ministerial act. No states I'm aware of, and I'm a broker in 21, and a salesperson in 2, require the performance of a ministerial act.
In states that have presumed agency, it is in fact then better to not provide a personal showing and request that they attend the open house. This will then eliminate the possibility of creating an unintended presumed agency relationship.
Skyline Properties - Realtor · Dallas - Fort Worth Metroplex, TX · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 925 votes2y
Quote from @Brie Schmidt:
@Jonathan Klemm - You have to understand that what @Henry Lazerow and I do is very different than the retail side of things. Sure if you are buying a condo downtown you can probably get away with using a discount broker. But 2-4 units is Chicago is extremely complex with 100+ year old buildings, Chicago zoning, department of buildings with violations and inspections, plus the RLTO. Our business requires a much more in depth knowledge base to advise investors.
The new contracts are not release yet but here is how it is going to work:
* Buyer's are required to sign a agreement with their agent that sets a commission amount
* Seller's will sign a listing agreement only for the listing agent's commission
* Offers to purchase will include a buyer's agent commission amount
* Offers will be presented as net to the seller
* Buyer's may have to cover the difference between their contract commission amount with their agent and what the seller is willing to pay.
One important thing to note is when we run comps on the MLS both commissions were always included, so that needs to be adjusted if a seller is not willing to pay a commission. They won't be able to sell their home for the same amount as their neighbor with the exact same house if their neighbor paid 2.5% and they are paying 0%
sadly sellers won’t think like you - many see the gross sales amount. And many agents are not educated enough to explain the difference to them in a positive way.
Plus, at least in Texas (as I write this), the new listing agreement has an option for sellers to still offer BAC.
The main point from this law suit is the BAC will not be shown in the MLS. Which will require additional hours of work on behalf of Buyer's Agents to find out what is included and what is not. I pray that Realtors across the board get better at communicating with faster reply times (and or actually pick up the phone when it's ringing). End of rant LOL
As always just my opinion and not written by Ai.
- Real Estate Agent · Chicago, IL · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes2y
I like double siding not even for the money but because the deal runs SOOO smoothly and you can get a deal that makes everyone happy knowing what each side wants. We rarely have 3% here so when double side you get 5%. For properties you own its not legal and you need to give a non agency to buyer atleast in IL.
Also agree with above, on our forms it still has both sides commision when you list. The difference is its not publicly posted so now buyers agent have to text you to confirm co op before they schedule if they have a buyer who isn’t paying them.
- Investor · Miami · Member since 2020 · 70 posts · 34 votes2y
How does showing a property to a potential buyer create an agency ? That makes no sense...
In this post NAR settlement world I believe sellers will require their Agent to handle showings to unrepresented buyers.
Which is what they should have been doing all along.. Not just going after listings and sitting around waiting for a deal to fall on they lap... And the Selling agent will have to attend all inspections, and prep the contract, etc etc etc...
Time to earn that commission ...
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
Quote from @John Clark:
The good thing is it can be a no agency, "just show," agreement for a particular property. Then I can draft my offer, stating no buyer commission. I'm just waiting for the lawsuits -- by the seller against his agent -- for where the agent breaches his duty to his client (the seller) to show the property because the prospect wouldn't agree to a buyer's agent commission.Quote from @Brie Schmidt:
A buyers agent agreement can be limited to a single property. You don't have to sign for their exclusive servicesQuote from @John Clark:
My impression was that a seller’s agent cannot show a potential buyer a property without some sort of agreement with that potential buyer in place. A no agency agreement limited to the one property would suffice.
That's what open houses are for. Listing agents are not obligated to show properties to anyone that contacts them.
If the potential viewer is qualified, the agent IS obligated to show. If I have a buyer's agent, then you as a seller's agent think I'm pre-screened, and therefore show. If I want to see and have no buyer's agent, and don't want you to represent me (you have a conflict of interest being the seller's agent) you would have to screen me, and qualify me, and then have me sign a no-agency contract.
If you didn't you breached your fiduciary duty to the seller. Given that I have to have some agreement with you (no agency, limited to property, no commission, just show), there may be anti-trust and restraint of trade issues as well.
What you won't have to do is help me with making an offer, etc.All of this is state by state. Many states have dual agency and the listing agent can represent the buyer as well as the seller. Other states (like CO where I operate) don't allow dual agency so the buyer would have to be unrepresented if they don't have their own agent, or the listing agent could switch to transaction broker, not representing either side. This can be tricky considering the listing agent has already advised the seller leading up to that point and most (maybe not you but definitely most) unrepped buyers need a ton of hand-holding.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2yNot sure I agree with the analysis, but it does make an apparent (superficial?) valid argument. Boils down to whether open houses would give enough exposure to the market to discharge one's duty to one's principal, the seller.
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
If you're qualified, you go to the open house.
Providing personal access to potential buyers is not part of the fiduciary duties in any state. Making access available is, thus what an open house is for. Providing personal access is defined as a ministerial act. No states I'm aware of, and I'm a broker in 21, and a salesperson in 2, require the performance of a ministerial act.
In states that have presumed agency, it is in fact then better to not provide a personal showing and request that they attend the open house. This will then eliminate the possibility of creating an unintended presumed agency relationship.
I don't know how that would work with commercial real estate.
Anyway, getting rid of the abomination of a "dual agency" is a good thing. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2y
Quote from @Andrew Lax:
How does showing a property to a potential buyer create an agency ? That makes no sense...
In this post NAR settlement world I believe sellers will require their Agent to handle showings to unrepresented buyers.
Which is what they should have been doing all along.. Not just going after listings and sitting around waiting for a deal to fall on they lap... And the Selling agent will have to attend all inspections, and prep the contract, etc etc etc...
Time to earn that commission ...
I don't see how the seller's agent has to prepare the offer. That's the buyer's problem. Arrange inspections and visits? Sure. Present the buyer's offer (even if written on a napkin)? Sure. Represent the buyer's interests by designing an offer? Nope. Can't do it. Your fiduciary duty is to the seller, so you can't draft buyer terms of offer.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes2y
Quote from @Steve K.:
All of this is state by state. Many states have dual agency and the listing agent can represent the buyer as well as the seller. Other states (like CO where I operate) don't allow dual agency so the buyer would have to be unrepresented if they don't have their own agent, or the listing agent could switch to transaction broker, not representing either side. This can be tricky considering the listing agent has already advised the seller leading up to that point and most (maybe not you but definitely most) unrepped buyers need a ton of hand-holding.
Dual agency is an abomination before the Lord.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes2y
Quote from @John Clark:
Not sure I agree with the analysis, but it does make an apparent (superficial?) valid argument. Boils down to whether open houses would give enough exposure to the market to discharge one's duty to one's principal, the seller.Quote from @Russell Brazil:
If you're qualified, you go to the open house.
Providing personal access to potential buyers is not part of the fiduciary duties in any state. Making access available is, thus what an open house is for. Providing personal access is defined as a ministerial act. No states I'm aware of, and I'm a broker in 21, and a salesperson in 2, require the performance of a ministerial act.
In states that have presumed agency, it is in fact then better to not provide a personal showing and request that they attend the open house. This will then eliminate the possibility of creating an unintended presumed agency relationship.
I don't know how that would work with commercial real estate.
Anyway, getting rid of the abomination of a "dual agency" is a good thing.The fundamental failure in comprehension you have John is your ASSUMING that seller would want/demand to readily provide access for any/all random persons of inquiry.
The reality is very much the opposite that the vast majority of sellers AFFIRM, as has been stated, that open house is the conduit for such persons.
So your building a world from assumption as to what seller directives are and are not for fiduciary duty. Which seems odd to me that a self-professed "lawyer" would lean so heavily on assumption vs facts.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes2y
Quote from @John Clark:
Dual agency is an abomination before the Lord.
I forget which of the 10 commandments that was......
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.