In my MLS, offers to brokers from other MLS areas are clearly stated in the listing information (of course, if you aren't in the MLS, you probably wouldn't be able to access that information). In any event, I think I would be sure to clarify that issue in my first conversation with the listing agency.

"Hi, I'm Suzy Q from the neighboring MLS and I'm calling to see if your listing on 123 Main Street is still available? It is? Can I show it? Do you participate with non MLS brokers? What are your terms?"

There is one independent broker near me who shares nothing with anybody. If you call and ask about a property, he makes that clear.

I am sorry to sound negative here. But what no one has stated is what the listing broker has advertised in the first place. You may be angry for only getting 1.75% but what was originally offered. If that is what is posted then so be it. Commission is totally negotiable and what the listing office chooses to offer is totally negotiable.

Also note that the co-broke fee may have already been negotiated out via the listing agreement. If that is the case your “included a Commission Agreement and sent that to the Seller for their signature” is actually illegal and also un-ethical for you are using a third party contract (for witch both your buyer and you are not a party to) to change the terms of. Especially if the listing agreement is an exclusive right. You cannot do that. Plus the listing broker not the seller is who offered the co-broke to the selling office. So be careful with that one.

It is not illegal for a buyer to ask their agent to add any additional commission verbiage into an offer contract. (remember, what our duties are under agency to the buyer)
If the co-op in the MLS is 2% and the buyer had agreed that their agent will get paid 3%, but does not want to pay out of pocket, the buyer can ask in the offer to have the seller/listing broker, make up the difference.

They can ask but also remember the selling broker is not a party the purchase and sale contract nor to the listing contract between the seller and the listing broker. Without being a party to the contract you have very little leverage to negotiate.

That's correct, because the purchase contract is between the buyer and the seller, the buyer can ask the seller for anything, the antique furniture, the old car in the garage or an increase of commission for his agent.
Depending on the offer, the seller can accept, counter or reject the offer.
The offer itself has nothing to do with the listing agreement or the buyer agency agreement, they are between their agents and clients and stand on their own.
p.s. I'm not saying it's the best way to negotiate, just that it's legal to do so, at least in my state.

Well sort of. Sorry been through this before.
You have to be very careful how you word it.
If the co-broke fee is say 2.5% and the buyer wants the selling broker to get say 3% then the buyer can ask that the seller compensate the selling broker an additional .5%. However what they cannot do is if the co-broke fee is 2.5% and they say that the co-broke fee is 3%. That become interfering with the listing agreement. And when you do that the listing broker then has a right to object to the contract. Without the verbiage “additional compensation” then the you are trying to renegotiate a contract of witch you are not a party to. And then the listing broker can object to the offer and contract period.
Been there before on a very same issue when I a young realtor. I had an offer on one of my listings where we offered 3% and the selling broker put it right in the contract to receive3.5%. I missed it the title company missed, the selling agent missed, it everyone missed it except the selling broker who came after us for the additional .5%. The judge ruled that part of the contract is illegal and voided as buyer and selling broker are not a party to the listing agreement.

Excellent input, Alan - I was hoping someone would have personal experience and could clarify regarding that situation.

Thanks
Also of note if the wording of additional compensation is not in the offer then here is what is actually happing. Say you have a 5% listing and agreed to co-broke at say 50-50 or 2.5% each. If the selling broker comes is and asks for say 3.5% then the listing broker only gets 1.5%. See this is how you are trying to renegotiate a listing contract of witch you or the buyer is not a party to. You got to realize that without the wording additional compensation the seller still pays only the 5% of the original listing agreement.
Without the wording of additional compensation the listing agent/broker can say no to that without the seller. Not to mention without the proper wording you are also flat out rude to the listing broker. For if you do not use the term addition compensation then you should be trying to renegotiate with the listing broker not seller. You are actually trying to do an end arround so to speak

"If the selling broker comes is and asks for say 3.5% then the listing broker only gets 1.5%. See this is how you are trying to renegotiate a listing contract of witch you or the buyer is not a party to."

We are talking about 2 different scenarios here. I think the above statement is very misleading because, since the buyer and the buyers agent have no idea what compensation is offered to the listing broker, they just know the co-op, I don't see how that can be implied as interfering in a listing contract.
Also, it's not the broker asking for an increase in commission, it's the buyer, because the buyer would have to pay the additional commission to their agent and is asking the seller to pay that. If the offer is such where the seller will gladly pay the additional amount, why should the listing broker object since he is not even part of the offer contract and none of his commission will be reduced?
It's just like asking the seller to pay for the buyers closing cost, it has nothing to do with the listing agents agreed to commission.

p.s. it's the same as asking a FSBO to pay the buyers agent, no difference.

No Pikes what you are saying is misleading.

The buyer cannot just say the selling broker is to receive 3% when 2.5% is offered without asking for there to be an additional compensation offered by the seller. If they do not ask for additional compensation above and beyond the listing agreement then they are interfering with the listing agreement of which they are not a party to.

[quote]No Pikes what you are saying is misleading. /quote]

Sorry, but my attorneys disagree. I suggest to let them fight it out.

Pikes,
You are right on the money!

My attorneys have expressed the same opinions in similiar situations and have had my clients include in the offer that the seller agrees to pay x% amount to make up for the shortage between my fee and the amount offered the listing broker as a co-op fee. The listing broker gets nothing extra so it has nothing to do with his listing contract so there is no interference.

Thank you, Pikes Peak & Paul, for the information -- I appreciate you both and I'm grateful that you took the time to research the issue

The rest of the story is that I took the clients to a new development and they're buying a brand new home. 3% for me and they're doing all the work and I'm just waiting for my check to arrive soon.

and I keep forgetting to tell Mr. GreedyAgent that we're not going forward with him...

Cool! Congrats!

I must say this really bugs me.
1. You are upset that you made a mistake and didn't find out what compensation if any you would receive from another agent, why does that make him greedy? He had no obligation to pay you anything. Take responsibility for your mistake and make it a learning experience.
2. You are willing to let your client "do all the work" and you just wait for your 3%, are you their agent and looking out for their best interest or looking out for yours? Wow, guess who sounds greedy to me.