Buyer's Representative:

As a buyer's representative, are you using an "old" standard form agreement and if so what amendmments are you making?

What clauses, if any, are you deleting that appear to favour the opposing party?

What ambiguities, if any, have you found that need to be omitted?

Here is my Buyer Agency agreement:
http://www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/contracts/BC60040705CLN.pdf

I have not found it necessary to change anything on it, however, a buyer once had me strike out the "Mediation" clause, which I had no problem with.

I had a hard time even wanting to read to the end of this contract, it was very intimidating. Have you had MUCH luck with it? I put myself in the place of my buyer and I would have wanted a lawyer...which I agree they should have one but it just scared the heck out of me. Just my honest opinion..I am aware you didn't ask for it however.

Since there were almost no attorneys in this state years ago, Colorado decided to use standard RE Commission approved forms and attorneys generally are not used in this state.
99% of my buyers are using buyer agency and all are satisfied with my explanations of the pros and cons of using it.

ADDENDUM: Originally, the reason for this post, was that (Locally) a buyer’s agent was sued by his buyer/client for breach of fiduciary duty, do to the fact that the Offer to Purchaser drafted by the buyer’s agent contained ambiguities that were detrimental to his clients best interest in conjunction with (preprinted) clauses weighted in favour of the opposing party (seller) that again were contrary to the best interest of his client and which the agent failed to either clarify, negotiate, amend, or omit, indicating a lack of competence and due diligence on the part of the agent.

That the buyer’s agent was unable to show that any effort was made to negotiate any of the adverse clauses favouring the seller in the preprinted Standard Form, which are a carry-over from the time when everybody mistakenly believed that they all worked for the seller as agent and subagent and that the transaction was under a buyer beware (caveat emptor) doctrine.

Apparently the buyer’s agent was unable to produce any exculpatory evidence during the discovery process (pre-trial depositions) other than to say that he used the “Standard Form” the same as everyone else.

The end result was that the E & O lawyer representing the buyers agent chose to settle the claim out-of court.

This should be a "Heads-Up" for Buyer's Agents, to read and understand the clauses in a "Preprinted - Standard Form" and act accordingly in the best interest of their client.

Important Notice: This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult an attorney in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this information .

OK Devil's Advocate, what is your interpretation of "The Unauthorized Practice of Law" for agents like myself?
I say, the standard state pre-approved forms written by attorneys in my jurisdiction, will protect me from having to pay out of my pocket for any frivolous lawsuit brought by others. Your statement above proves it. The E&O insurance paid for it, (probably because of their ignorance).
http://www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/manual/chap5.pdf

Devil's, no need to answer the question. Most courts will say "we'll know a violation when we see one". That's the flexibility of each state to interpret laws that are ambiguous and keeps attorneys employed.

Two phrases come to mind:

" Forewarned is to be Forearmed" and

"An Ounce of Prevention, is worth a Pound of Cure"

Locally, in a recent survey, the legal costs of a three day trial were found to be approximately $60,000.

I guess this is why there are so many out-of-court settlements in civil matters, as the legal costs will most likely exceed the amount of the claim.

Important Notice: This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult an attorney in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this information .

In N.Y. it is said attorneys can "act like" Brokers without a brokers license.
Here in Colorado, Brokers "can act" like attorneys without being licensed.
What does "act like" mean? Pretend? I would say instead, that attorneys can perform some real estate functions and brokers can perform some legal functions without having to be licensed in that specialty.
http://www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/manual/chap5.pdf

LOCALLY: In Ontario, Canada it is my understanding that because real estate Brokers are involved in drafting contracts and other legal documents within the scope of their real estate practice, in conjunction with being both regulated and insured, that they are currently exempt from having to be licenced as lawyers.

Lawyers on the other hand cannot act as real estate brokers, unless licenced as such, but can represent and act on behalf of their clients within the scope of a client's real estate transation and all matters incidential thereto.

Re: Act It is my understanding that when one is authorized or permitted to act, meaning to function either on behalf of someone or within the meaning and accepted interpretation of prescribed legislation i.e. the ("Act").

Important Notice: This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult an attorney in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this information .