I think this may be verging on going off-topic too much; but there's now too much water over the dam already that I can't see starting a new thread at this point; so here's hoping that the OP (avidstudent) will indulge me as I'm not trying to hijack his thread on the subject of calculating GLA.

I was somewhat of a new-bee when Vermont decided to eliminate Sub-Agency in the mid-1990s, and many old-timers saw it as some kind of loss.

Looking back now, I am pleased that I have usually let the responsibility for validating all information lie with the Listing Agency . . . . why would I ever want to become responsible for verifying EVERYTHING associated with a property listed by someone else ?

If I haven't listed the Subject property, I'm quite happy to serve as a Broker's Agent and represent their interests. And I've chosen to only become a Buyer's Agent IF the Buyer really demanded representation . . . . AND I had already sized them up as being compatible with me. Most Customers don't care, and why would I voluntarily put a target on my back ?

Towards the end, I think I almost always asked for and received a Retainer in exchange for my representation . . . . not always; but once I explained what being a Buyer Broker meant, I don't recall ever not being paid a Retainer.

I'm jealous of my time and know that I don't have to take on responsibilities with every Buyer who wants me for a slave . . . . and after more than 25 years of occasionally performing as a Buyer-Broker, I can say I've never been sued by a Buyer-Client. Can't say the same for Seller-Clients.

But this "L" Shaped Ranch episode that I described above looks like it was a pretty close call !
Dale C. Hittle of GOLDEN RULE PROPERTIES in Glover, Vermont
Where We're Always Striving To Put Together "THE FAIR DEAL"