Exclusive versus Non-Exclusive Buyer's Agent Agreement

| | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (4)

From an email:



I was in the process of buying and selling the house when we saw a FSBO house we liked was for sale. But sale fell through, which is a good thing anyway because of contigency on our house. But I also suspected it failed ecause the seller refuses to pay commission to our buyer agent.



My question is that this real estate agent that would represent us as a listing agent is also a buyers agent. However, I had another friend look into the contract and the buyer's agent agreement is valid until December 31, 2005. So that means anytime we find a house, he will be paid? We do the work to find a house and he gets paid? It didn't strike to me as ethical or fair. It will simply takes us off the real estate market until January 1, 2006 when we can start all over with a clean slate. Correct?



We don't think it should've been in effect until December 31. It should be in effect only for that FSBO house we liked, and if the deal falls through, then his job as a buyer's agent also stops.



Am I dealing with a greedy real estate agent or is this typical?



Can I have one agent to sell our house and another agent that represents us to buy a house?





This depends upon the nature of the agreement you signed with him. I use non-exclusive buyer's agreements, which basically say that if I introduce you to the house, then I get paid when you buy it. Others use exclusive buyer's agreements, where they get paid no matter who finds the house.



If I have an exclusive buyer's agreement with you, then I am going to get paid on any house you buy. If I have an non-exclusive agreement, I will only get paid if I introduce you to the house, and you may have any number of non-exclusive agreements in effect as long as you are careful to inform each agent you are working with that you have previously been introduced to a given property, and therefore, any commission that takes place will be paid to the other agent. All of the forms used by California Association of Realtors state that you will pay a commission to the agent if the seller won't, so an agent has comparatively little stake in which house you buy, as long as you buy one through them. This gives them the largest possible incentive to work on your behalf, without binding you to one particular agent who rather be working with another client who came along with a bigger budget, and therefore a bigger commission in the offing. When looking for homes to show, ethical agents won't seek out a For Sale By Owner (FSBO) for reasons I go into near the bottom of this article (basically, protecting your pocketbook), but these do not apply if you, the client, choose to make an offer on a FSBO.



I suspect that you signed an Exclusive Buyer's Agent Contract with him, something I would not do unless he's providing you with lists of foreclosures or something. Once such a thing is signed, that agent is going to get paid no matter what house you buy during the agreed upon period. I would never agree to either a listing or buyer's agents period longer than six months. This gives the agent plenty of time to sell your house or find you one. So if the agreed upon expiration is December 31, 2005, then if you buy before then, that agent will be paid - out of your pocket, if not the seller's.



There are two competing factors here. One is your desire not to pay for services not provided for this particular transaction, versus the agents desire to get paid if they actually do the work anyway. If they serve as your negotiating agent, or help expedite the transaction by providing services, they are ethically entitled to be paid whether or not they introduced you to the property. On the other hand, if all they do is obstruct, there is neither a legal nor an ethical reason why they should be paid. Depending upon the nature of their obstruction and how much it cost you, you may wish to contact an attorney to recover, or your state's Department of Real Estate



Sad to say, there are agents out there looking to line their own pockets in any way they can. A better agent wants to get paid, but realizes they will make an excellent living - better in the long term - by putting your interests first. Without more evidence, I cannot say for certain, but it appears at first glance that this agent had you sign an exclusive buyer's agent agreement in order to represent you in a transaction you found. I am not aware of any regulation prohibiting this, but it does seem like it's excessive from a neutral viewpoint. It is probably not voidable, however.



There are standard California Association of Realtors (CAR) forms for both exclusive and non-exclusive buyer's agents agreements. Look up at the title of your copy. If it says "Exclusive", you are stuck with this person. If it says "Non-exclusive" you may do business with anyone you please, as it applies only to those properties this particular agent works on. Of course, many agents and brokers use non-standard forms for this, as the standard CAR forms are readable and understandable by anybody. If they want to throw curves, non-standard forms are one of the best ways to do it.



As to whether you are dealing with a greedy agent or if this is typical, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. As in all sales occupations, the idea of locking up your business creates powerful motivations for them to have you sign exclusive agreements. There are nonetheless, people such as myself who feel that if I am not helping you, I don't deserve to be paid, and let someone else have a shot. But if I've got an exclusive agreement with you, I should be providing daily foreclosure lists, copies of all new listings, or at least something that goes above and beyond sitting on my hands.



Many agents want you to sign an exclusive buyer's agent agreement before they do anything else. Unless you're getting something special out of it, you shouldn't sign one at all. Offer to sign a non-exclusive buyer's agent agreement - that way you have leverage over them, not them over you. They are motivated to work for you and find you a property that is attractive to you at a price you want to pay, because if they don't, someone else will. Even the best agent can't find stuff that doesn't exist, like a 3 bedroom home in La Jolla for $250,000, but if it does exist I'm going to work to find it first, and I will get paid for it because our agreement says I will get paid if I introduce you to it. If you have signed an exclusive agreement, there is no particular hurry for them to help you.



Finally, listing agreements for sale are (in general) individual agreements for a particular piece of property for a particular period of time. As long as there is no more than one listing agreement per property in effect at a time, you can have any number of different agents for sales, even if you have signed an exclusive buyer's agreement for purchases.



Please let me know if this does or does not answer all of your questions.

Caveat Emptor

Original here



Categories

4 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Exclusive versus Non-Exclusive Buyer's Agent Agreement.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://searchlightcrusade.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2658

From an email: I was in the process of buying and selling the house when we saw a FSBO house we liked was for sale. But sale fell through, which is a good thing anyway because of contigency on our... Read More

» What Do Buyer's Agents Do? from Searchlight Crusade

Got this search: "should I get a buyer's agent if I've already found a house" The answer is almost certainly yes, but I am going to examine both the pros and cons. Full disclosure: This is what I do for... Read More

» Buyers Who Don't Want A Buyer's Agent from Searchlight Crusade

You see it all the time at open houses and elsewhere. People who desperately need buyer's agents, but think of Buyer's Agents in the same way they think of automobile sales folk, and that's the complete opposite of the way... Read More

I have to admit I'm uncomfortable with it and don't like it. As a buyer's agent, here I am getting paid by someone who not only is not my client, but whose interests are aligned, in most issues, opposite to... Read More

2 Comments

Suzette said:

This information is not correct and misleading. I had posted an explanation on here, but it was removed. I suppose someone here does not want the public to know the truth.



***

No, I deleted the previous comment because 1) IMHO, you were comment spamming. This is the on-line equivalent of my home. If someone poops in the middle of the living room floor, I am going to clean it up, 2) You had either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted the article, and I believe it was the latter 3) You're basically full of ****. Your comment suffered from at least two logical fallacies, the straw man and the ad hominem. This comment of yours also suffers from ad hominem. If that comment and this one are typical samples your thought process, I pity your clients. I've got nothing against exclusive buyer's AGENTS, only exclusive AGENCY AGREEMENTS. DM

Suzette said:

No, I was not comment spamming. I was only offering a different opinion on the value of an exclusive buyer agency agreement, when it is properly negotiated between buyer and agent. Buyer's can use it to lay down the ground rules and boundaries with their agent. What is wrong with saying this?



You falsely accused me of "straw man" fallacy, when in fact, you did say that you are against exclusive buyer agency agreements. Therefore, I did not misunderstand you.



You also falsely accused me of "ad hominem," but I did not attack you. I only offered a different view from yours, that's all. If anything, you attacked me with your accusatory language.



By the way, there is no need to pitty my clients because they know me and the kind of person I am. I put my client's interests above my own and I work very hard for them always, not that I have to justify myself to you.



I should also mention that it is wrong to slander people you don't know, it's called "defamation of character" and it won't be tolerated.



I thought this was a public board and did not realize it belonged to a private party.



Please remove all of your slanderous comments against me from your board, or I will have no choice but to contact my attorney. Also, feel free to remove all comments that I posted.



***

DM here

1) You touted your skills (while denigrating mine) including references to your website. In other words, comment spam. I don't get that much, which is the point of requiring a login, but you're hardly the first. The benefits of a link from what I'm told is a Page Rank 6 site has people willing to do it. 2) You kept talking about the skills of the exclusive *AGENT*, ignoring the same skill set in the same agent working on a nonexclusive basis, but not about the differences in the exclusive versus non-exclusive *AGENCY AGREEMENTS*, which is symptomatic of not understanding the point of the article. However, you're right in one instance. It's not really a straw man argument, and I was mistaken to label it as such. It's a red herring, although it does have elements in common with a straw man as well. 3) You say you did not attack me, but you attacked my logic in not negotiating buyers agent commission with seller at point of an offer as a bad practice. Well perhaps where you are has different laws, but the way it was explained to me, any negotiations that have the effect of negotiating buyers agent commission at point of offer is illegal in California. The way I am given to understand it, it is only by seller offering said commission ahead of time that said payment from seller to buyer's agency does not run afoul of the fiduciary agent requirements. 4) I started to type something else, but I'm just going to let the adhominem thing lie at this point in time 5) That you fail to understand the nature of the site is not my failing, but yours. There are indications on every single page of the site, including the one you made your comments on. 6) I feel confident in saying that there is nothing actionable in a defamatory sense in my comments to you, but there is in your comments to me. Get your attorney, if you insist. I'll countersue, and win. To further illustrate your limited understanding of this subject, it would not fall under the definition of slander even if there was something actionable. I believe "libelous" was the word you are looking for, but it doesn't apply either. In my honest opinion, you are best off letting it drop right here. Finally, a threat of legal action, such as you made above, is a member of the class of actions known as "threats". I am not going to ban you yet, but any further repetition of said behavior will result in your being banned from further comments at this site, as will another incidence of comment spam - and my opinion is the controlling one for this site. You are still welcome to make the case for exclusive agency agreements as opposed to non-exclusive ones, provided that your behavior does not offend, yet again, the guidelines set down by this site. You want to borrow my audience, which may not be the biggest there is but is nonetheless here because they want to read what I put up, you live by my rules. When in doubt, it is my opinion and my judgement that controls this site. I try to keep it logical, rational, and on-topic, and my motivation is that my readers are free to not bother stopping by if they don't think what I have here is worth their time. If you cannot deal with the boundaries I set, you do not have my permission to address the people who have chosen to sit in this theater. You are still welcome to create your own, and good luck to you with it.

Leave a comment

Copyright 2005,2006,2007 Dan Melson All Rights Reserved

Search my sites or the web!
 
Web www.searchlightcrusade.net
www.danmelson.com
--Blogads--

blog advertising
--Blogads--

blog advertising --Blogads--

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dan Melson published on February 17, 2007 10:00 AM.

Flight Delays was the previous entry in this blog.

Non-Recourse Purchase Money Loans in California is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

-----------------
Advertisement
-----------------

My Links

-----------------
Advertisement
-----------------
Powered by Movable Type 4.0
If you don't see an answer to your question, please consider asking me via email. dm (at) searchlightcrusade (dot) net. I'll bet money you're not the only one who wants to know!

Requests for reprint rights, contact dm (at) searchlightcrusade (dot) net! Subscribe to Searchlight Crusade
**********
Blogroll Me!
Subscribe with Bloglines



Powered by FeedBlitz

--Advertisement--
--Advertisement--
**********
C'mon! I need to pay for this website! If you want to buy or sell Real Estate in San Diego County, or get a loan anywhere in California, contact me! I cover San Diego County in person and all of California via internet, phone, fax, and overnight mail.
**********
Contact me! dm (at) searchlight crusade (dot) net (Eliminate the spaces and change parentheticals to the symbols, of course)
Most Recent Posts
********** Advertisement **********