Does a buyers agent have the same responsibilities to a buyer as an "exclusive" buyers agent?

For example: if an agent attracts a buyer prospect via their website or other means (including an incoming referral), and they convince the individual to sign a buyers agency agreement, do they have the responsiblity to show that buyer any and all properties that meet their criteria... or can the buyers agent pick and choose what to show them?

Are they obligated to show them all FSBOS and flat fee listings? I hear alot of agents on this board say that they won't show flat fee properties because they know that the listing agency won't do any sell-side work... and that flat-fee listings usually just sit there and don't sell... but if an agent is working as a buyers agent don't they have a responsiblity to show them those properties if they meet their criteria?

Can there be any other explanation for the majority of flat fee listed properties not selling other then they are conciously being avoided by agents? That sounds like a huge lawsuit waiting to happen... doesn't it?

how would an agent be expected to know that a fsbo is for sale? if the property is not advertised through the mls it is a longshot for a lawsuit imo....

lets face it...if a seller advertises in a nespaper is it my responsibility to know every single home that is secretley for sale?

actually... yes it is according to this:

http://www.frascona.com/resource/oef701buyer.htm

signed agreement or not.

you cited something where the case never went to court.

can you find multiple examples of going to court and the agent being found in breach of fiduciary duties?

personally, i would not have settled, but gone to court over that.

the rationale just does not make sense.
-there was no mention of the advertisement of the fsbo. did it even have a sign?
-did the buyer ask to see the property?
-was there any mention of the 175 fsbo price to include the agents commission? as there was probably a % or specific ammount mentioned in the EBA. so there is teh chance that 175 would not even be the "true" price paid.


**********there are 2 sides to a pancake no matter how flat you make it******we only have 1 side!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that side is from an attorney would would probably like to get other cases like that so they write an article about it so others can see.

i can download a form from the courthouse and sue anyone i want for $20.00! thats right! twenty big ones starts a suit! what a crock. if i sue someone it means nothing until the outcome is reached. there was no outcome (in the courts) in this cited "incedent" so we dont know what would have happened if it actually went to court.

When you take on the contractual duties of being the Agent of a Buyer, I think the Fiduciary Responsibilities are the same, regardless of whether it is an "Open" Buyer Representation or an "Exclusive" Agreement.

"Exclusivity" has little, if anything, to do with the breadth of your Fiduciary Responsibilities; it merely ensures that you are the Buyer's "Only" Agent during the life of that Contract.

We have an Exclusive Buyer Agency Agreement for the Representation of Buyers, which I use most often because it leaves the Buyer free to chase FSBOs to his/her heart's desire.

my eba states

broker shall attempt to locate real property which is available for purchase and suitable for purchase by buyer and made available through other real estate brokers.


they could sue me, but hey lets face it......you can sue anyone for anything...to file a suit does not mean that there is validity to the accusation.

looks like i am covered in the event a buyer wants to sue over not showing a property that i (or they)did not know about.

I really asked this question more to the relation of flat-fee listings being shown then FSBO's. Statistics show that about 85% of homes sold involve an agent, yet we also know that agents tend to avoid flat-fee listed properties for the reason I stated.

Those flat fee companies and consumers could get vocal and demand more from the buyers agent. Some atty I'm sure could make a case that there is collusion afoot. Another argument could be made that if it is the responsiblity of a buyers agent to present all properties for sale... then there really is no need for anything but a flat fee listing.

Vermont, I agree with your statement regarding duty to customer.

This is one screwed up industry.

We had this discussion regarding Oliver F's example of showing FSBO's over a year ago I believe (I know and respect him tremendously, I take all his mandatory CE classes, which are the best).
http://www.agentsonline.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/142732/1.html

It comes down to the buyer agency contract and what is agreed to between agent and buyer as far as compensation and which properties they would like to see.
If the buyer is willing to pay 1% and the FSBO is offering 2% and the contract calls for a minimum of 3% to the agent, the agent obviously has the duty to show all FSBO's that fall within this criteria in the area the buyer is looking to buy. Sometimes the agent might not know the FSBO compensation offered until he talks to the FSBO.
So it stands to reason, if a buyer tells the agent to show ALL properties, that the agent should make every effort to do so.
Normally it is not difficult, when a buyer has zeroed in on a specific neighborhood, to locate FSBO's.
It all comes down to what the agent agreed to with the buyer and every agent should clearly set the written guidelines before showing properties.
The question is not how much the FSBO is listing the property for, flat fee, 1/2% etc. it's the compensation offered that will determine if an agent wants to work with a buyer.

Broker you have posted this in so many different ways over the years and yet REALITY is still the same.

Come on guys are we really going to espouse fiduciary duty and what kind of agency is given??


I am just a realist and that will never change.If you are a discounter or flat fee business you can cry and wine about how everything isn't fair.The same can be said on the other side as well.

We have people on both sides that complain because the world isn't what they want it to be and then there are the people that take reality and make something out of it.

IN A PERFECT WORLD "Every buyers agent/broker would show every listing and fiduciary duty would never be compromised"

TRUTH " Most buyers agent are newly liscensed and have little sales. So they want to sell the property that pays them the most with the least hassle. Most of the agents are gone after the first year and the cycle begins again"

IN A PERFECT WORLD " Flat fee people would do the work on there side of the transaction making other brokers WANT to show there listings rather than having to work both sides of the deal for one fee and being put in an implied agency with the seller because the listing agent/broker is nowhere to be found "

The problem is the flat fee,discount need to have there feet held to the fire.If they want to do it for less and offer the SAME service then great but it does not usually happen. Are there exception sure but I don't see with many buyers agents being new each year that this is going to drastically change.

The reality is if you had a few listings to show and you knew that listing agent/broke rhandled there business you would want to work with them to do a deal. If you knew you couldn't get ahold of someone and they are a nightmare to deal with then you would avoid those properties if you can and show something else.

Very well spoken.

If [you] truly feel that the listing agent doesn't need the fee they charge, then why not offer to represent the seller, explain contract issues, set up showings, coordinate inspections, make sure all it set to clear for closing etc, all for your flat fee. I mean, if it truly is so easy and all, and traditional listing agents are just greedy...

I am not worried about this at all as I do "tradional" representation of the seller 99% of the time. The very few exceptions have been when the scope of my buyer representation is very limited; for example when only a specific property is targeted.

broker, the example that you gave was very unclear. I think I read that story a few years back.

The problem that exists was that the story never mentioned anything about the FSBO's advertising. The only way for that buyer's agent to know the property was for sale was if there were some sort of advertising. How does everyone know that the buyer's agent didn't try and look for FSBO's too? Can you prove that? Maybe the buyer's agent looked for every FSBO that matched the buyer's criteria, but happened to miss the one next door with no advertising. It would be impossible to know about.

That case never even went to court anyway. I would have never settled in mediation. I think it would be so hard to prove that the agent wasn't looking for all types of properties.

Another good point is that many agents do not use an EBA these days. I sure don't. So how would this affect me since I don't have anything in writing forcing me to show every single property in the world? It wouldn't. So I guess I am safe.

I don't hunt down FSBO's. Plain and simple. If my buyers find a FSBO and would like to put an offer on it, I would be happy to represent them still, but I will not look for FSBO's. Hey, at least I'm honest.

The Colorado buyer agency agreement actually gives the buyer agent the opportunity to disclose where he will search for properties for his buyer. For example, in the expanded Denver metro area which includes some foothills properties and Boulder there are two or three different MLS's. I only use the Denver MLS, so I state that in my buyer agency agreement (actually, I don't do EBA's, but if I did, that's what I'd say). If a suitable listing were to come up in one of the other systems, I'd never see it, but my agreement says that's okay. I assume this would apply to FSBO's too, since no where in my EBA do I agree to search newspapers or drive neighborhoods.

The Ummel court case had the opposite result. The buyer's agent showed a lot of houses but not all of the ones listed in the MLS and still won in court. So if a court decided he did not have to show all of the MLS houses how could we be held responsible for not showing secret fsbo listings.

I think Sara doesn't exist. Fake story to get more business.