We've been looking on our own for a couple of months now. My wife and I went to see a property and met the realtor for the property. We don't really like the place and tell the realtor, after asking us a few questions about what we were looking for the realtor said he may have some other things we may be interested in.

Two days later he calls us with 3 properties gives us the addresses and tells us to go on Sunday to view the properties with him. We go to the first place henever shows up. Since it's an open house we walk in and talk to the seller's agent. Then we decide to drive by the toher houses and take a look. One of the realtor's associates is at the next house and apologizes and he can't get into this house and we should go to the third house. When we get to the third house we can't get in either. Needless to say we were a little anoyed with these guys and we just leave.

We really liked the first place and called the agent that showed us the property and set up an appointment to talk. Today he calls back and says the Realtor that never showed up called him and says that everything has to go through him.

We never signed a contract or made any oral agreements. Is this enforcable. Do I have to go through him. I really don't like this guy. What are my options?

You are free to pick whomever you want as you never signed a contract





------------------
Paul Oaks
Broker\REALTOR
Coldwell Banker

True and even if you DID have a contract, the agent who showed you the house would have won in court.

but ya, sounds like your orignal agent was lame, or too busy for his own good (which will still bite him in the ass later on)

Work with the agent who will be work for your best interest, has time for you.

Good Luck
Ritu


------------------
Ritu Desai
Buying or Selling in Northern Virginia? Contact me for all your residential real estate needs

SAMSON REALTY,LLC
Phone: 703-625-4949
Email - rituadesai@yahoo.com
On the web: http://www.homesdatabase.com/ritu

If you never entered into a contract with this agent, you should have no problems going with another agent. The agent did not live up to their "fiduciary duties". Go out and find someone who is going to go out of their way to help you out, not someone who just gets out of the way. Good luck!

This is not the place to solicit business!

how would the agent that showed him the home have won in court? say the client does sign a buyer broker contract, then arent they obligated to use that agent? if not, that wouldnt be fair to the client's agent just because another agent showed the client 1 property!

In this case, the agent who lived up to his duties would have been able to collect on the commission. We can't get a commission just because the contact says so. If we don't live up to our duties, the contract can be thrown out. Agents can't just have buyer's sign representation agreements and then abandon them.

The only thing the agent would be to do (if they had an agreement) is try to take the buyer to court, arbitration, etc., in which case they'd have to pay the buyer's legal fees should they lose. Wouldn't be worth it, especially if you didn't do anything to deserve pay.

my concern is this:

say i have a potential buyer sign a buyer/broker agreement and we go look at homes on a saturday. the buyer doesnt like any of these homes. now say the buyer goes out sunday by himself and sees an open house that they want. if the buyer uses the open house agent, then why should they be getting commission? just because i wasnt with them on that sunday, i should no longer get my commission by having the contract upheld? that would be messed up.

This is a basic question that's covered in regular pre-licensing classes, buyer rep courses, ethics classes, etc.

In this case, the agent didn't do anything. He hasn't shown houses, written any contracts, contacted the customer, etc . Just because a buyer doesn't like a house, it doesn't mean you didn't live up to your fiduciary duties. It sounds like you need to brush up on what an agent's fiduciary duties are. You remember, OLDCAR? Obedience, loyalty, disclosure, care...etc? Here they are from a quick Google search. "Reasonable Care and Diligence" is the operative one here.

if this response was for me, you are totally missing my point. in the example i gave above, i explained if i had shown houses to my client but then my client went to look at a house that i didnt show him, then he decides to buy it, the other agent doing open house should not get my commission for it.

The answer to your question is obvious. If you have a buyer's rep and it says you get commission, the only way you don't is if you don't fulfill your duties. If they go off on their own and find a house, they owe you commission unless your agreement allows for this.

Like I said, the answer to this question is beaten into us in pre-licensing courses, buyer rep courses, and basic contracts classes. It's a common situation, so the question is raised all of the time.

that is NOT how xstudiox made it sound when he said: i figured the contracted agent gets paid but his statement threw me way off.

He was following up on the actual topic, which specifically involved a buyer who did not sign an agreement or agree orally to be represented.

All other issues are separate.

i know he was following up on the actual topic, BUT he did make a change to it with a theoretical statement behind it. note that he said "even if you did have a contract". so i went off of his statement with a question for him to back that up.

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.