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.
True; the purchaser "agrees" when they sign the contract to purchase, indemnifying the vendor against claims by multiple agents.
the vendor is responsible for any further commissions (to others), if that eventuates, but is passing the cost to the purchaser if it arises.
Precisely.
Yes, but not by the agent as he is not a party to the sales contract.
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.
simple answer here
in any contract if you dont like a clause you cross it out.
Concur - too many people (including me earlier on in this game) think the contract is some kind of sacred document. It's not!
grossreal said:
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
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:
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.
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.
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?