I agree with this.
But as a side note forgetting the REA's for a moment - If I were the vendor and had been dealing with a prospective purchaser for a good amount of time (as in this situation) - I would have used the new 'bidder' as leverage and a bargaining tool, but at the end of the day, unless the new player was able to offer significantly more then the original purchaser, I would most likely feel a 'moral' obligation to go with the first purchaser. Does that make sense?
Makes perfect sense, In fact that is what I was told .. "The Vendors chose the other party because they have been dealing with them longer"
My concern is that the Vendor was not told that I was cashed up, no finance required and an offer of a quick settlement(verbal, not in contract because the agent told me it will make no difference!), as opposed to the other party still looking for finance with a longer settlement.
While the two offers were for the same amount, I believe mine was much better for the Vendor as I have the cash in the bank!
To avoid all of this, see the original title of the post, Insist on dealing with the agent who listed the property.