Ok, so hopefully you are clear now.

The reason that Mr. No Show is saying that you have to go through him isn't because you have any obligation to him. He is saying that because he is claiming "procurring cause" for the commission. He feels that he is owed the commission if you buy that particular property, because he told you about the property and sent you to see it. Agent #2 doesn't want to do all of the work for you if he isn't going to be paid, so he is sending you back to Mr. No Show.

Unfortunately, it seems that Agent #2 doesn't think he has procurring cause, but I would guess that he is mistaken, because he did do more to sell the house than Mr. No Show did (I think that was what xStudiox meant, as well) and is really the one who earned the commission. It would probably go into mediation (ie "court") if the two agents decide to fight over the commission.

Agent #2 could approach the listing agent and tell them about the situation and ask for a commission agreement that the lister will pay him the commission and not Mr. No Show. It'd be a tough call for the lister, though. They'd probably have to talk to their broker first.

Anyhow, you have no obligation to either agent, without a Buyer Rep contract. However, you would have a hard time getting another agent to work for you, with this particular property, if another agent has a claim to the commission. You could choose to hire your own Buyer Rep, but you'd have to pay them out of your own pocket.

I still stand by it.

So you showed the house and have a buyer contract with a couple, they then purchase it through another broker.

You showed them the house sure.... but procurring cause is that the other broker got the contract together, signed by the clients, and submited it.

Now you can fight that procurring cause was just showing them the home (every agent loves to use that one) but the fact is you will probly lose even more money.

If it was a lame agent or they showed them 184+ homes, it will be the same situation untill mediation, which i would rather walk away from.

The first agent is the procuring cause for finding that property.In Nevada, even though you didn't want to use the first agent, he would be entitled to that commission. Since he told you about this property he technically brought the buyers. I could be wrong I'm not a real estate attorney. But, I'm pretty sure on this one

Simply telling someone about a property doesn't automatically give an agent procuring cause. There has to be a clear line between introduction and sale. If the first agent could be shown as having "abandoned" the buyers (he never showed up) and the second agent picked them up and ensured the sale, the second agent would be procurring cause. The first agent "brought the buyers" but did he actually cause the sale? Or was it through the efforts of the second agent that the property was sold?

The Realtor web site explains that procuring cause is a combination of many factors which determine that "the unbroken efforts of a specific broker were responsible for the buyer making the decision to consummate the sale on terms which the seller found acceptable. In other words...the sale would not have occurred but for the broker's efforts."

no doubt.

people love the word procuring cause, just not properly.

i also believe that in Nevada the first agent that showed the home has procurring cause. They were the agent that actually introduced the home to the client.

In our jurisdiction, that would be called intrusion. Some or all commissions, fines, and licensing penalties applicable.

The prospective purchasers arrived at the property, arranged by Agent #1. At some point they decided to converse with Agent #2. Was the prearranged meeting not disclosed. Did Agent #2 not suspect or outright query such?.

Agent #1's timeliness may have not been impressive, but certainly not abandonment (again referring to my jurisdiction it is 10 days non contact). A hearing would certainly divulge his justifications.

On the other hand, Agent 2, although we are not told, should have suspected something was amiss (how could the prospects not have projected this?). Although not required, he likely should have suggested that these prospects call the realtor to help them get back on track. And on this particular property, he should not have made himself available if he became aware of the situation. He exposes himself to penalty if he uses derogitory indicators towards Agent 1.

All said and done, if the prospects move on the original property with Agent 2, this Agent should seek advice from his broker because he could be heading for a hearing.

I the prospects called and spoke with Agent 1 and his broker, declaring their dissatisfaction and that they are dropping him over Agent 2, that may satisfy the 'intrusion' issue, but that still may not stop Agent 1 from filling complaint along with compensation against Agent 2.

To the purchasers it should make no difference with what may have been a mix up on where to meet first. I sounds awful suspicious that Agent 2 had a few things to say about Agent 1.

So to make a long story short, and specifically reply to the original query, if it was in our jurisdiction, NO, you do not have to go with anyone specific agent, unless you have a written buyers agreement. The agent you use however, operates under a number of rules and regulations, and may be penalized if he contravienes any of these.