I'm sure it would be every bit as efficient, organized, and responsive as: the IRS, Social Security, Homeland Security, Medicare, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, No Child Left Behind and all the rest.

I too have a US passport, but I just don't think I want the feds in real estate. Everything they touch seems to turn into one big, expensive wreck.....not to mention they'd find a way to add a few more taxes into the mix to fund all of their pet projects for their friends.

No thanks, but I do find your viewpoint interesting.

Don't forget the Armed Forces! Imagine none of these Departments would exist (War on Poverty, No Child Left Behind don’t qualify as such), would we be better off with or without them, or should each state take care of these issues themselves?
As to RE licenses, as I mentioned earlier, I can practice in 27 states without retaking any exams today, why not just add another 25 and we have the US and part of Canada covered? To get this far did not involve the Feds. just co-operation between states.

Politics is for another forum; but states do have the right to have (or not have) reciprocal agreements as they see fit. I would just hate to see any federal body pre-empt (sp?) that right.

I agree.

Duel Agency - Is considered by the courts as a conflict of interest and illegal irregaardless of what the real estate industry choses to call it. Real Estate then renamed it "Consentual Duel Agency" in that it was what all the parties to a transaction wanted and "consented" to in writing, thus giving it legal standing, or so they believed. Many lawsuits against duel agents have been settled quietly by insurance companies in order not to establish case law and to refrain from encouraging other consumers who may consider filing a lawsuit on the same grounds. The plaintiff's counsel is usually always successful is showing that the agent made "inadequate disclosure" of "negative and material facts" and therefore the "consent" was invalid.

I think if it was illegal, agents would not be able to do it.
I'm not saying it was/is the best way of doing business, but when I did it years ago, it was the only way. As long as it was disclosed it was legal in our state.

It's me again. I agree. Dual Agency is wrong. You can't work for two masters and do what you are supposed to for both. However the market reality is that buyers come to the listing agent to see the property and ultimately buy the property.

The regulators accross Canada are in the process of changing the nature of dual agency that would basically allow the agent with his clients consent to become a transaction facilitator.

What I do know is...Dual agency makes me very nervous because it is a conflict of interest.

www.teamjohnston.com

Duel Agency - Invalid disclosure - Agents fail to disclose all the "Negative Features" of Duel Agency and therefore the parties do not receive "Full Disclosure". The solution is a prepared Duel Agency Disclosure Document with all the "good, bad and ugly" details, with the option to obtain " Independent legal advice" (which may be waived) and have all the parties acknowledge receipt of their copy and your home free as the courts normally believe the parties made an informed decision, given their written consent, and consequently have no case against the agent.

Is the first sentence of every one of our contracts.

As an agent I’d advise not to expand the disclosure on your own, with your own verbiage. The possibility of not getting it right will increase your liability. These were the required disclosures:
This relationship involves the following limitations:
· The Agent will deal with the Buyer and the Seller impartially.
· The Agent will have a duty of disclosure to both the Buyer and the Seller except that;
· The Agent will not disclose that the Buyer is willing to pay a price or agree to terms other than those contained in the Offer, or that the Seller is willing to accept a price or terms other than those contained in the Listing;
· The Agent will not disclose the motivation of the Buyer or the Seller to sell unless authorized by the Buyer or the Seller;
· The Agent will not disclose personal information about either the Buyer or the Seller unless authorized in writing;
· The Agent will disclose to the Buyer the defects about the physical condition of the Property known to the Agent.

What is written on paper and what happens in real life are two different things.

And really, what is the point of having an agent that acts impartially? Would you want your attorney or accountant acting impartially to you? Or would you rather pay them to act in your best interest?

The incentive for "disclosed dual agency" is clearly heavily in favor of the agent making an extra buck. I fail to see any benefit to the buyer or seller to accept dual agency when the agent is going to take both sides of the commission. THE BEST, the buyer and seller can hope for is to be treated impartially. Where is the incentive for them?

At my brokerage, in the rare instances we have a dual agency transaction, the co-op commission is split between the brokerage, seller and buyer.

Duel Agency Again - Not without risks - can you imagine responding under gruelling cross-examination about each and every clause in an "Offer" that you drafted? i.e Did you use the "standard preprinted form"? If so, What clauses did you add or omit to add to the "Offer"? Describe for us what your purpose was in each instance for adding or omitting that particular clause? (the attorney has a long list of clauses) Describe for us to whose benefit or detriment did that particular clause relate? No matter how the agent answers, he will be cast as someone without creditability motivated by his own personal greed and the plaintiff's attorney will attempt to show that the agent did in fact favour one party to detriment of the other... A "No Win Situation" costing the agent time, money and a lot of stress.

That's why our state went to this:
http://members.ppar.com/private/designated_brokerage.asp

I will only do Single Agency - That does NOT mean that I will not write on my own listings, that only means that the Buyer WILL NOT have any representation and I would never do that to a 1st time home buyer or an inexperienced buyer. I tell them that they need to have a Broker to represent them. On a FSBO if I have a buyer for their property I negotiate my commission to be paid by the Seller but I redundantly make it clear verbally and in writing that I am only representing the Buyer even though they are paying my fee.
I believe when a Broker (In Oregon all Agents are now Brokers and there are no Agents. There are Brokers, Principal Brokers and Principal Brokers/Managers (The Broker Broker) ) represents both parties (the Sellers and the Buyers) that Broker is actually representing the commission and not either party - (I know I am going to get a lot of &#$% for that but I truly believe it). How can a Broker represent each party 100% - It cannot be done!

Everyone misusing the word Duel for Dual gave me quite a chuckle!

How true... dual agency is a "duel" between masters!

Scott

Well said.

Now let me ask you a tough question. When you are the listing agent and you bring in a unrepresented buyer, does your client benefit from the situation?