|
Agency -- What Is
It?
Double-Agent OR Exclusive-Agent?
You Make The Choice!
It's Your $ Money
That Will Pay Both*
You have heard the
expression; "Call a spade a spade". Well, I also believe it is
proper to call a double-agent, "A Double-Agent*".
The big money
in today's real estate game (the BIG brokerage houses with the big numbers),
call a Double--Agent, "An Assigned Agent",
"A Designated Agent", "A Transaction
Broker", "A Facilitator" or "A Limited-Dual-Agent". I accept that a leopard, by any other
name, is STILL A LEOPARD! If you can buy that, then you will probably also
accept that a Double-Agent, by any other name, is STILL A DOUBLE-AGENT!
 *A Double-Agent is one;
who gives, to one party in a transaction, a
limited amount of
Confidentiality, Accountability, Reasonable Care, Loyalty, Obedience, Advocacy
and Due Diligence; while, AT THE SAME TIME, he or she is giving a
limited amount of the same
Virtues and Values to the other side of the transaction!
"Conflict of Interest" factor that cannot be
avoided in "Limited
Dual Agency"! "I will be 'fair' with you", says the
Double-Agent. Trying to be "fair", is trying to be a "Judge"
of who should get certain benefits in the transaction. That's not
being an Advocate For The Buyer!
The
Agent Motivation Here Is; to justify a single office legally extracting the total brokerage fee being
paid in the transaction. Tradition has divided the "Real Estate
Commission" between the Listing Agent that legally represents the Seller
and the Buyer's Agent that legally used to be a Sub-Agent of the Seller, BUT NOW
may legally represent the Buyer in the capacity of Exclusive
Representation.
I thought you might be interested in reading about
a Supreme Court Case that
occurred, several months ago, in the State of Oklahoma.
For:
"More
Than You Ever Wanted To Know
About
Agency":
I
will
paraphrase a little below (emphasis added):
**SNIDER
v. OKLAHOMA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; No. 88,917; 987 P.2d 1204 ;1999 OK 55
Decided: June 1, 1999; September 16, 1999; Mandate Issued: Sept. 17,
1999;
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
The setup: An
Exclusive Buyer's Agent ("EBA") received a complaint from the Oklahoma
Real Estate Commission and was reprimanded and fined for "false and
misleading statements" when he advertised that he saved Buyers thousands of
dollars through his EBA services. The EBA and his Franchise Developers
challenged in various Courts; Loosing in District Court and Appellate Court;
But, Winning big-time at the Supreme Court level. Please verify for
yourself at the url above, if you question any of my statements. A few
excerpts follow:
Note
1).
¶15 In the traditional, historical relationship a real estate agent was the agent of the seller, and this agency did not
extend to the buyer, even though both parties received and relied on information from the
agent. The buyer was not represented. The problem with the traditional relationship is that unsophisticated buyers negotiate with brokers
who have little or no duty to protect buyers' interests.
Note 2).
¶16 With residential real estate transactions, "it is a widely accepted rule of agency law that a real estate broker
operating under an exclusive listing contract with the seller of the property stands in an agency relationship to the
seller." The Supreme Court of Colorado observed that the prevailing perception of the broker as an agent of the
seller is firmly imbedded in the real estate business, and therefore a written agreement is necessary to establish an
agency relationship between a purchaser and a real estate broker or salesperson.
Note 3).
¶17 We find... sellers' agents and dual agents do not and cannot by law give a buyer the same degree of loyalty as an agent who
acts on behalf of a buyer.
Sellers' agents owe their allegiance to the
seller. Dual agency invites a conflict of interest. A buyer who relies on
the seller's agent or on dual agency does not receive the same degree of legal protection as that afforded by an agent acting solely on behalf of the
buyer. Accordingly, we find that the order of the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission is clearly erroneous, contrary to its own rule,
and without evidentiary support and must be set aside.
There are more
interesting and compelling statements in the Cite that you may read at your own
leisure at: Click
Here . Suffice to say that
all 50 States have enacted Agency Laws
to
give the Buyer equal representation in real estate transactions.
The choice is yours.
The Buyer is King and Queen if they can only understand that! Contact an
EBA today and begin a $atisfying journey with $ervice and $avings attached.
In Tucson, Arizona Call Paul today. 1.800.900.5327. It's toll-free.
|
It's a Changing World
Out There 
