Actually Pikes' post does apply to the second scenario.



If the company wanting to put the sign in the ground is a real estate brokerage (which they would have to be in order to represent a buyer in the transaction) then the seller is to refer all "communications" by that real estate broker, to their own listing agent.

Creating an agreement whereby the secondary company is allowed to place a sign in the yard and advertise for buyers would take "communication" which should have been referred to the listing agent.

Whether it's legal or not is for an attorney to decide...but based on my understanding of english, it would not be allowed based on the portion of the listing agreement that Pikes presented.

buyers aren't contacting the seller off that sign... they are contacting the buyers agency directly.

"refer to Broker all communications received in any form from real estate brokers, prospective buyers, tenants or any other source during the Listing Period of this contract."

based on this listing contract wording - the seller can refer/let the other broker know that a buyers agency has also put a sign in the yard... but buyers are contacting the buyers agency directly off of their sign because they will give them cash back.

i know what the intent of the listing agreement is.. and that may be what a judge sees... but this is not unlike a mortgage company putting their sign on a property saying "cash back" in addition to a realtor sign, getting calls from buyers and then referring them to another buyer agency that will do so.

Real estate and mortgage services are not the same and require seperate licenses and have different ethical and legal obligations to the public.

there's a huge difference between "referring all communication to an agent" and "letting an agent know the outcome after communication has already been established and an agreement executed"



Broker - you're changing the meaning of the word "refer" (by using the slash) to suit your argument.

"there's a huge difference between "referring all communication to an agent" and "letting an agent know the outcome after communication has already been established and an agreement executed""

yes there is and that's and excellent point.. but I don't think it applies to this situation since it is meant to make sure that all offers are sent through the broker so that they are ensured they get paid. the key here is that the orginal listing broker is going to get paid for their listing side work no matter what.

the cleanest way around this then is for a mortgage company to put a sign in the yard and then refer buyers to a buyers agent.

"Real estate and mortgage services are not the same and require seperate licenses and have different ethical and legal obligations to the public."

while this is true, this is one of the core issues of this thread - ethical and legal obligations to the public. Is it ethical for a real estate company to stifle competiton that may get a consumers home sold faster through wording on a listing contract? Is there anything unethical or illegal (for the consumer) about having two companies list one house if that's what the seller wants?

who as a consumer wouldn't want to save money?

How many signs in the yard does it take to sell one home?
Which sign in the yard will make potential buyers call first, the one that says price reduced by $25k or the one that says all closing cost paid if you call this sign?
As the listing broker, why would you let the owner place a FSBO sign in the yard next to yours?
It is difficult enough to make a living in this business without someone else running interference. As agents we are required to use the MANDATORY contracts given to us, otherwise we are practicing law, the reason is for the consumers protection, not for stifling competition.
The consumer can list with more than one RE company, unless it's a unique high priced property, personally, I would not waste my time.