The fact that the vendor has put Special condition 31 in the sales contract requiring you to indemnify the vendor against any claims from others, tells me that the vendor is responsible for any further commissions (to others), if that eventuates, but is passing the cost to the purchaser if it arises.
Commission when buyer views one property with several different agencies
- Thread starter Alex_1
- Start date
Yes, but not by the agent as he is not a party to the sales contract.
hi all
simple answer here
in any contract if you dont like a clause you cross it out.
this clause is in most nsw contracts as its nearly the norm and its the norm I cross it out.
yes they don't like it
even had one say they would indemnify me if I left it in
my answer is simple you want it in for what reason.
you sent the site to lots of agents not my problem
you can put it and has been the case where there is no agent on the contract and the vendor and real estate deal with it them selves
this causes them a problem as they then have to change there selling agreement and thats a real problem for the vendor.
the best way I have found is the commission is split and the vendor holds back half if no claim in 6 months its released to the real that sold the property.
is and has been a problem as people think they can see it with one agent and get another to negotiate the deal ( me being that type) so we organise to split the commission or use other ways
this is not unethical in any way shape or form to me
what it is
is good business one agent might have the deal but another might be hell of alot smarter
ethics or unethical is doing something with an intent to harm an entity with a view to shaft the other entity and using a way thats not normal in a market.
for me this person was in a hurry
that fine if she goes to ten agents that means the vendor gave it out to 10 agents and if this problem comes back to the vendor
well silly vendor
not silly buyer
the buyer didn't organise the contract or put up the property.
and this is in the sellers contract
if you caused the problem for me simple removes it.
oh
if I was her I would get the other agent to ring her back tell them if they want her business get back quicker and take 5k off the offer to each
as all these real estate ring the vendor sees the price dropping not rising.
and if the come back say yes you want to buy but the house is with x number of agents because the vendor thinks it unsellable.
simple answer here
in any contract if you dont like a clause you cross it out.
this clause is in most nsw contracts as its nearly the norm and its the norm I cross it out.
yes they don't like it
even had one say they would indemnify me if I left it in
my answer is simple you want it in for what reason.
you sent the site to lots of agents not my problem
you can put it and has been the case where there is no agent on the contract and the vendor and real estate deal with it them selves
this causes them a problem as they then have to change there selling agreement and thats a real problem for the vendor.
the best way I have found is the commission is split and the vendor holds back half if no claim in 6 months its released to the real that sold the property.
is and has been a problem as people think they can see it with one agent and get another to negotiate the deal ( me being that type) so we organise to split the commission or use other ways
this is not unethical in any way shape or form to me
what it is
is good business one agent might have the deal but another might be hell of alot smarter
ethics or unethical is doing something with an intent to harm an entity with a view to shaft the other entity and using a way thats not normal in a market.
for me this person was in a hurry
that fine if she goes to ten agents that means the vendor gave it out to 10 agents and if this problem comes back to the vendor
well silly vendor
not silly buyer
the buyer didn't organise the contract or put up the property.
and this is in the sellers contract
if you caused the problem for me simple removes it.
oh
if I was her I would get the other agent to ring her back tell them if they want her business get back quicker and take 5k off the offer to each
as all these real estate ring the vendor sees the price dropping not rising.
and if the come back say yes you want to buy but the house is with x number of agents because the vendor thinks it unsellable.
True; the purchaser "agrees" when they sign the contract to purchase, indemnifying the vendor against claims by multiple agents.
Precisely.
You're right; the agent isn't directly making the purchaser pay. They make a claim against the vendor, and as the vendor has indemnified himself in the contract, they pursue the purchaser. But as it has the same effect, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I don't recall - or see - anybody saying that the agent could directly pursue the purchaser.
Concur - too many people (including me earlier on in this game) think the contract is some kind of sacred document. It's not!
If you choose to involve another agent that you feel is more capable of negotiating the purchase, then I don't have a problem. That's just acting in your own best interests. But this seems much more trivial than that. The person wasn't deliberately seeking out a better agent; they weren't willing to leave a voicemail and wait even 5 minutes, but instead made a call to another agent because that agent dared to use his mobile phone for - *Gasp!* - speaking to other people!grossreal said:
When you know that you're agent 1's client, and that making a call to agent 2 is going to cost agent 1 thousands of dollars, you're making a conscious choice that it's reasonable for your impatience to penalise the agent to that extent. That's an "intent to harm", and a shaft. I maintain that it wasn't reasonable, given the circumstances as I understand them to have been outlined, ie wouldn't even leave a voicemail or try again in 5 minutes, but immediately when the phone went to agent 1's voicemail, went to agent 2. This isn't a matter of involving multiple agents in her genuine best interest due to negotiating ability, poor customer service from original agent, etc - it's simply petty and self-absorbed.grossreal said:
For those still not "getting it", let's try applying the golden rule. How would you feel if you were this agent... you host the open inspection at which the purchaser was introduced to the property. You don't even know that purchaser rings agent 2 on Monday, because they didn't leave a message. You follow up with purchaser on Monday evening and they say they're still thinking about it. You follow up again a few days later, they say yes they want to purchase, you negotiate the deal, prepare the paperwork, get purchaser to sign, go and visit vendor. Vendor says "oh, by the way, I rang agent 2 to tell them I've got a sale, and they advise that they spoke to that person on Monday and faxed them some information about the property, and so you'll have to split your commission with them". What recourse does the agent have? How would you feel if you were the agent?
I don't recall - or see - anybody saying that the agent could directly pursue the purchaser.
Another form that you sign for the agent says so.
The purchaser is not the client of any agent, the vendor is the agent's client. The Vendor has directly brought the situation upon themselves by listing with multiple agents. The potential buyer does not know the law on commissions or indeed whether the agents have an agreement amongst themselves.
I will say as an aside is that most people who aren't investors, and even some buy-and-hold investors, don't necessarily understand how real estate commissions work. Even if they have sold houses before, it may have been a long time ago, and they probably didn't multilist.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the purchaser actually knew she was (or might have been) costing anyone anything. Even if she was aware in some general way that one person would get the credit for the sale over another, she may have thought something along the lines of, "If the agent wanted the business that badly, they'd have redirected their phone to the office."
I think it's interesting that you, and others, refer here to the purchaser as the "agent's client." Don't we always tell people the agent is working for the vendor and not the purchaser?
Don't get me wrong. To me as a purchaser, a good real estate who takes the time to know us and what we want, and direct us to those properties (preferably before they hit the open market) is worth every cent of their commission. But there is only one of those in town. The others? They're just obstacles to properties. They sure as hell don't treat us like clients even though we indirectly have given them much more commission than any one vendor. I wouldn't deliberately do them out of a commission, but nor do I think of them as having any "client" relationship with me or of their relationship with the vendor as my responsibility. They'd sell me down the river for the next warm body in the door, so what do I owe them?
Ozperp - i see where you are coming from. I agree in this situation it wasn't 'nice' to do this to the agents. But what happens if sales agent 1 is just an *** and/or doesn't know what they are doing/talking about. Is it then unethical to go and find another agent? I would and have done that at the shops many times - some of those people earning commissions. This is why I dislike people saying something is immoral or unethical - it is a matter of opinion and the is more often then not shades of grey. If a Vendor wishes to avoid this sort of conflict, they should avoid listing with multiple agents.
Oh, I see where I mislead you.
I meant that you sign a form for the agent, stating that they're the only agent that's introduced you to the property. I assume this is so that if the vendor does have a claim from another agent, that they can refer to this to try and refute the claim. If you in fact did deal with another agent, then I would assume that the vendor can then pursue the purchaser for having signed a false statement, which the vendor relied on to their detriment.Semantics.
We all know that the agent represents the vendor in the transaction; substitute "customer" if you prefer.
Arguably; I agree it's not a wise strategy.jrc said:
If the buyer was just naive, then you'd have some point. But the fact that she concealed her dealings with agent 1 when talking to agent 2 - and vice-versa - suggests that she was aware; she just didn't care.jrc said:
And if you're that naive as to not realise that agents are paid by commission, then perhaps you're not ready to purchase property yet.
I'm well aware the agent acts in the vendor's best interests. I don't think using the word "client" implies they're on your side. Centrelink refer to welfare recipients as "clients", but that doesn't mean that Centrelink workers are acting in the best interests of welfare recipients above the interests of the Federal Government.
What word would you prefer? What I mean is "the agent has brought this prospective purchaser to the table"...
It's not about real estate industry or agents in general; I'm talking much more broadly about the golden rule. Real estate agents have families to feed, too.deejay said:
If I haven't made it clear enough yet, if there was some source of dissatisfaction with agent 1, I don't think that would be unethical. But if your "dissatisfaction" is as petty as "the agent uses his phone for talking to people other than me, and may not have returned my call for a full FIVE minutes", then I think that's a pretty petty reason to potentially cost them thousands. If they showed you through the property competently and seemed pleasant enough to deal with, then I believe that common courtesy dictates that you at least give them 30 minutes or so to get back to you before going to another agent.
I agree that the vendor is unwise to multi-list; I'd never do it. But given that they did do it, I'm just talking about what I would consider common courtesy in this situation. But hey, it's just my opinion.
What did the voice mail say, and where does the five minutes come from?
I read it from the original post that she phoned agent 2 immediately when her call to agent 1 went through to voicemail, without even leaving a message. ie I'm saying she didn't even give him 5 minutes; she didn't give him any opportunity to get back to her at all.
Yes, that's correct... the agent was only unavailable briefly. It's possible he was just on another call at the time. The lady couldn't be bothered even leaving a message, so she just called another agent.
If the agent had been away for an extended period of time - say, a holiday - then I can understand her needing to find another agent to show her through. But that wasn't the case here.
My impression from the story is that she was a very self-important person who simply wasn't prepared to wait for anyone. She was happy to deal with multiple agents just so that someone was always available at her convenience to see the property on short notice, whenever she felt like it.
She's a professional businesswoman and has bought quite a few properties before, so I'm sure she knew her behaviour was likely to cause commission conflicts. She probably just didn't care, and saw it as "not my problem."
Having been in the position where we were selling OTP apartments, we did employ 2 seperate listing agents, however we set up an agreement where as whoever actually presented the signed contract would get 70% of the commission, and the other would receive 30%. This was agreed by all parties before anything went ahead. Granted, we aren't talking 2 or 3 units, more like 58 apartments worth over $100Mil collectively, therefore it was in the best interests of both agents to make sales. They attended the sales office on a rostered basis so each had equal opportunity to make the sales.
I personnally (rightfully or wrongfully) would also call the second agent straight after calling the first agent if I did'nt get a response. I guess that I am just impatient...time is money...got a pretty busy life you know
There are both numbers listed for a reason, it's not my fault the first one didn't answer.
Anyway, who would decide who gets their name listed first on the sign/promotional material, obviously this would have a major impact on the amount of calls they receive.
That's my opinion anyway...
Boods
I personnally (rightfully or wrongfully) would also call the second agent straight after calling the first agent if I did'nt get a response. I guess that I am just impatient...time is money...got a pretty busy life you know
There are both numbers listed for a reason, it's not my fault the first one didn't answer.
Anyway, who would decide who gets their name listed first on the sign/promotional material, obviously this would have a major impact on the amount of calls they receive.
That's my opinion anyway...
Boods
Similar threads
