Commission when buyer views one property with several different agencies

Someone related an incident to me recently where a lady he works with was interested in a particular property. It was open-listed, with at least 3 different real estate agents' signs in the yard.

She first called one agent and viewed the property with him.

The next day she wanted to go through the property again but the first agent's phone went to voicemail. She couldn't be bothered waiting so she called the second agent (from a different agency) and went through the property with him, not mentioning that she'd been through it already with someone else.

I believe at some point she even viewed the property with the third agent (from the other sign on the property), when the other two weren't available at a time that suited her.

My question is - how does the commission work in this situation, where the buyer is using multiple agents to show her through a property? If she buys it, who gets the commission? The first agent, who initially introduced her to the place? The agent who gets her to sign a contract? Could the seller be liable for multiple commissions?
 
not sure what state this applies to, but in QUEENSLAND...

up until recently it was taken as read that the agent that INTRODUCED the purchaser to the property was the agent due the commission or at least a significant portion of the commission if it went to court (happens often).

a while ago though (can't remember when) - the courts changed that via a decision to be the agent that EFFECTS THE SALE... i.e. it doesn't matter who had first "claim" on the purchaser, it was the agent that effected the sale by way of contract.

there is a fair bit of case law on all this and i guess there is in other states too - ring your local office of fair trading or equivalent (body that controls the licencing for agents)

hope this helps.
 
Who would know without exact details of conversations etc etc? However, the fact that she wanted to look again the next day would normally be a strong sign that the first agent has been effective.

If it were me I would tell the agents to sort it out between themselves.

On second thoughts if it were me I wouldn't be multiple listing
 
The next day she wanted to go through the property again but the first agent's phone went to voicemail. She couldn't be bothered waiting so she called the second agent (from a different agency) and went through the property with him, not mentioning that she'd been through it already with someone else.
Well, it's people who are unethical and impatient like this who require the Courts to make rulings. Seriously, she knows it's a commission business; what was she thinking? :rolleyes:
 
That's not her problem. It is the Vendors for listing it with several agents. For all she knows the agents have agrreed to share the commission

Agree. I reckon it's the vendor's issue to sort out. Why would the prospective purchaser care which agent does what?
 
What did she do that was unethical?
She has already viewed the property with an agent; she's that agent's customer. Because he didn't answer her phone call immediately, she decided "screw it; he can lose or have to have to share his $10K commission". That behaviour may not be illegal, or "her problem", but it's not something that I consider ethical or reasonable.

If she'd gotten bad service from that agent, or he'd not returned her call for 24 hours or more, then perhaps it might not be so bad. But if you're a client of a particular agent, and they've given you adequate service thus far, then depriving them of perhaps $5K of income because you couldn't even wait 5 minutes for them to take your call, is poor form, IMHO.

I get annoyed when I have to wait for people to call me back, too; I confess to some impatience issues. :eek: But I wouldn't think it was reasonable to make somebody else be penalised $5K for my impatience.
 
She couldn't be bothered waiting so she called the second agent (from a different agency) and went through the property with him, not mentioning that she'd been through it already with someone else.
And this little gem of information suggests to me that she knew what she was doing wasn't right. The second agent, if he was ethical, would have refused to take her through if he knew that she'd already been through with another agent.
 
The next day she wanted to go through the property again but the first agent's phone went to voicemail. She couldn't be bothered waiting so she called the second agent (from a different agency)
What did the voice mail say?

She has already viewed the property with an agent; she's that agent's customer. Because he didn't answer her phone call immediately
What did the voice mail say? Maybe it said we won't be back for a week but you can try one of the other two agents?

To answer Alex1's original question, it is my understanding that the vendor only pays one commission, how it is divided would be worked out between all the listing agents.
 
seen a few NSW contracts that put the liability of any claim by another agent squarely on the purchaser.

I need to ask...what sort of contract were these? Were they listing contracts, offer to purchase contracts? or?...
If they were listing contracts, then the prospective purchaser is not a party to an agreement between the vendor and agent, so I fail to see how they could be liable.
If it is a contract for the purchase of a property, then this is a contract between the vendor and purchaser.
The agent cannot force liability of a commission on to a purchaser unless they agree.

Not saying you're full of it:p, but I think I may be missing something here:confused:

Boods
 
I need to ask...what sort of contract were these? Were they listing contracts, offer to purchase contracts? or?...
If they were listing contracts, then the prospective purchaser is not a party to an agreement between the vendor and agent, so I fail to see how they could be liable.
If it is a contract for the purchase of a property, then this is a contract between the vendor and purchaser.
The agent cannot force liability of a commission on to a purchaser unless they agree.

Not saying you're full of it:p, but I think I may be missing something here:confused:

Boods

I couldn't find it on the contract but somewhere it states that you were not introduced to the property by another agent. You sign it, thereby stating that you were not introduced to the property by anyone other than the agent you are now signing the contract with.
 
Was in the contract of sale when we purchased our PPOR a few years back.

Special condition 31 - The purchaser warrants that he has not been introduced to the property or to the vendor by any other than the agent referred to herein.....The purchaser agrees to indemify the vendor for the commission so claimed plus any legal costs and expenses which the vendor might be liable to pay in respect of that claim....

Unless I'm reading it wrong.
 
boods, I've definitely heard of a buyer being made liable in cases where their actions have caused double commission to be payable - and fair enough, too.
I couldn't find it on the contract but somewhere it states that you were not introduced to the property by another agent. You sign it, thereby stating that you were not introduced to the property by anyone other than the agent you are now signing the contract with.
I think travelbug is correct; it's neither the contract or the listing agreement, but another form you sign concurrent with signing the contract.
 
Was in the contract of sale when we purchased our PPOR a few years back.

Special condition 31 - The purchaser warrants that he has not been introduced to the property or to the vendor by any other than the agent referred to herein.....The purchaser agrees to indemify the vendor for the commission so claimed plus any legal costs and expenses which the vendor might be liable to pay in respect of that claim....

Unless I'm reading it wrong.
There you go - can be done via the sales contract. I believe you are reading it correctly, TBW.
 
Top