NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/consumer/house/14659

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!mccc!pjh
From: [e-mail] (Pete Holsberg)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Re: How to tell a REAL buyer's agent
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:42:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: The College On The Other Side Of Route One
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
=In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Topher Eliot) writes:
=> It makes me think
=>that if I ever list a house for sale through an RE agent again (not that I
=>think it's a good idea in general), I will put a clause in my contract stating
=>that if the buyer is represented by a buyer's agent at any point in the
=>negotiations, the commision I pay will go down by 50%.
=
=What difference does it make to you as a seller WHAT representation the
=buyer has?  You pay your agent to list and sell your house.  If your
=agent wants to split that fee with some other agent who provides a
=buyer, regardless of their relationship, I don't see that it is
=particularly any of your business.

In the traditional setting, both the selling agent and the listing agent
work for the seller. Thus, they do not disclose to the buyer any info --
such as bottom line selling price -- that would place the seller at a
disadvantage. However, if the buyer -- acting in ignorance of the
selling agent's relationship -- confides his top offer to the selling
agent, that agent is *required* to inform the seller.

If a buyer and agent enter into a "buyer's agency" contract, the agent
in possession of "top offer" is not permitted to inform the seller or
the listing agent.