If a vendor says to the agent "don't bring me offers under $x", is this legal...

Would it be legal for them to not pass on offers that are lower than the minimum amount?

I know agents are required by law to pass on all offers. Would this therefore be allowed? Or would they be compelled by law to ignore the vendor's instructions? (Maybe it's against the law for the vendor to even ask the agent this to begin with?)
 
If the vendor has given written instructions not to bring offers below say 400k (wanting 500k) and someone offers 398k they REA doesn't need to bring it to the vendor.

The agent will be able to reject the offer based off the written directions by the vendor and they do not need to present the offer. The REA will of course say we took an offer today of 398k.

If there is no written instructions then yes the REA legally is obliged to.

Most REA will not ask the vendor for instructions in writing as it is very rare someone will want to waste their time on a property so significantly below and it also isn't good for the agent if the instructions say not to bring anything under 495k (still wanting 500k) as it removes negotiations and feedback from serious buyers.
 
The written instruction shouldn't need to be even mentioned.

A smart r/e will already know what the Vendor's likely sell price range is, and when buyers put in an offer, and the offer is ridiculously low, the agent should already have the reply ready;

"The Vendor has already knocked back an offer of $X, and he/she has instructed us to not take any offers to them below $X" - to test the buyer out.

Whether it's a true statement or not.

Then, once the r/e has worked on the buyer for a while and milked out a reasonably serious offer, then take it to the Vendor.
 
Last edited:
what if the vendor hasn't knocked back any offer before?

say they want 500k and you got an offer of 450k is that classified as to low? What if the vendors were desperate to sell and would take the 450k now on unco and 30 days (which is the offer you have) but instead you rejected it?

If 450k was okay, how about 445k/440k/430k where do you draw the line?

What if there was 20 beneficiaries on the property worth 500k that is a deceased estate and the REA got an offer of 460k (maybe the guy started at 430k) and there has been no interest for 2 months, each person would get 25k @ 500k sale price but for 460k they get 23k each. However the REA rejects it and the vendors find out this and say they would of taken that as it made little difference in their back pocket reducing the price to that level.

With written instruction the REA is protected otherwise the REA could be in trouble with the law as he never presented the offer and they might have taken it.
 
At the end of the day, if a vendor has strictly said to not bother bringing offers forward under a certain amount, then that is their instructions. I don't see that happening too often though. I think that it is the agents duty to also let the owner know of EVERY offer that comes, no matter how low or high. At the listing appointment or whenever they disuss this, the agent should say that they will be bringing in offers no matter what this is and explain further into it. I dont think it happens that often though....does it?
 
At the listing appointment or whenever they disuss this, the agent should say that they will be bringing in offers no matter what this is and explain further into it. I dont think it happens that often though....does it?

Not often, mainly just with people that want results and don't want to be bothered with low offers really.

But then there are always agents that play by their own rules and don't always inform the owner as required.
 
what if the vendor hasn't knocked back any offer before?
It doesn't really matter too much - the agent can use his/her discretion and/or preempt what a Vendor might be willing to accept or knock back, and play a bit of a white lie game with the buyer. Not totally ethical, but it sorts out the tyre kickers from the real buyers and stops everyone's time being wasted.

I worked for an r/e who occasionally called up a Vendor who had no or low interest in their property, and he would tell the Vendor that an offer had been presented. It was lower than the asking price of course, but it was (one of) his ways of attempting to feel out the Vendor's real position.

say they want 500k and you got an offer of 450k is that classified as to low? What if the vendors were desperate to sell and would take the 450k now on unco and 30 days (which is the offer you have) but instead you rejected it?

If 450k was okay, how about 445k/440k/430k where do you draw the line?
I am fairly sure that no agent would reject an offer/s this close to the asking price - unless there were written instructions from the Vendor not to bring any offers below say; $475k, etc.

What if there was 20 beneficiaries on the property worth 500k that is a deceased estate and the REA got an offer of 460k (maybe the guy started at 430k) and there has been no interest for 2 months, each person would get 25k @ 500k sale price but for 460k they get 23k each. However the REA rejects it and the vendors find out this and say they would of taken that as it made little difference in their back pocket reducing the price to that level.
It is up to the agent to use their experience and expertise to make the discretionary call on these types of scenarios.

With written instruction the REA is protected otherwise the REA could be in trouble with the law as he never presented the offer and they might have taken it.
It depends on how low the offer is I would expect.

For example; the Vendor wants $500k. A reasonable expectation for a serious offer (that has a likely chance of being accepted) would probably be within 20% discount of the asking price....$400k.

The obvious question is; would anyone here accept an offer that low? In normal circumstances you wouldn't most likely.

You would if the Bank was about to take your house possibly, or you were going through a divorce possibly...more unusual circumstances than normal.

A good agent would probably already know some of these details before the campaign begins; or have a suspicion about the circumstances behind the sale, and act accordingly..

So, an agent might say to the buyer who offered $400k; "Look; we already have an offer in for $435k and this was rejected, so if you really want the property; you might want to come up a bit more."

The agent can still take the $400k offer to the Vendor after this, but at least he/she is having a crack at getting the best price out of the buyer and in a shorter time frame without all the games.
 
So 20% is acceptable, how about 21% below?

What if the house with FMV was 500k but the owner wants 1M and advertised 900k+ and they got an offer of 600k or even 470k?

I am only stirring (I agree with you it is stupid) but what the act says is that all offers need to be present unless written instruction have been provided. An agent won't try to get written instructions and a vendor is unlikely to provide a do not provide offers less than x unless there was some smart *** kid...
 
So 20% is acceptable, how about 21% below?
Sigh;

It's merely a strategy/concept to facilitate a better price for the Vendor and in a timely manner.

Unless there is a written instruction from the Vendor, the agent can play all sorts of games to achieve an end, and the agent can always take the low-ball to the Vendor after he/she has tried to drag the buyer up.
 
The written instruction shouldn't need to be even mentioned.

A smart r/e will already know what the Vendor's likely sell price range is, and when buyers put in an offer, and the offer is ridiculously low, the agent should already have the reply ready;

"The Vendor has already knocked back an offer of $X, and he/she has instructed us to not take any offers to them below $X" - to test the buyer out.

Whether it's a true statement or not.

Then, once the r/e has worked on the buyer for a while and milked out a reasonably serious offer, then take it to the Vendor.

I on one occasion had an REA say this to me, but I persisted with the offer and forced the REA to deliver my offer. To my suprise (and I strongly suspect his too, since an REA just wants to do the transaction after all) the vendor had a change of heart and accepted my offer. So I do take REA representations with a pinch of salt.

On another occasion I was trying to sell a place, and despite the fact that I had already knocked back an offer of $279k, the REA was compelled to be sending me lowball offers in the $250ks range. This was a pain in the butt for me and an even bigger waste of time for her because the offers had to be done on the full form etc., scanned and emailed to me. If I were doing it again, I would give the REA a written instruction not to accept offers under $x just to save time. Of course, any REA worth their salt would still drop me a line saying "I have someone prepared to make a written offer of $y - do you want to change the instructions" but that is a lot easier than scanning 40 pages of contract.
 
The written instruction shouldn't need to be even mentioned.

A smart r/e will already know what the Vendor's likely sell price range is, and when buyers put in an offer, and the offer is ridiculously low, the agent should already have the reply ready;

"The Vendor has already knocked back an offer of $X, and he/she has instructed us to not take any offers to them below $X" - to test the buyer out.

Whether it's a true statement or not.

Then, once the r/e has worked on the buyer for a while and milked out a reasonably serious offer, then take it to the Vendor.

true story - this is what happens

also there is no round table discussion on offers it's more like a 5 min phone call - "I'm working pushing the price up for the highest 2 bidders - so far is $x amount but I think another $x amount is possible.

also we have these lower offers which are sitting there in the back ground but we will not entertain at this stage.
 
My understanding of this law requirement is that it was made for the vendor protection. To make sure that if there are several offers within acceptable range, then all are passed.

Sometimes RE can get emotionally involved and sympathise one buyer more than another just because they grew up in same area, or someone of the nicer character. Or there could the RE's old classmate, or promises of gifts. Or some buyers are crying poor and pressing on RE.

So that is why this law requirement was introduced. But there is another requirement - to follow all rightful vendor's instructions. So if the vendor advised, that he or she does not want to see offers below the XXX it is their right.
 
Back
Top