REnate
|
No way, never, not on your life and that is a definite NO
I would look into some legal support |
|
The Death Bunny
 |
Estate Agents are the scum of the earth, bobbing along in the sewer slightly below journalists, slightly above politicians. |
|
mentor
 |
No they should not,Estate Agents are just the same as Used Car Salesmen and the only thing they are interested in is making more cash for themselves,and the Purchaser is the one that suffers.
I think that Estate Agents should just be able to introduce the buyer to the vendor and let the Solicitors do all the negotiating this,will remove a lot of the bull that the agents come out with to bump up the price. |
|
staffingpro9999
 |
The reality is that the real estate agent that brings in the buyer is STILL an agent of the seller. Look at the money trail and you will see that real estate commissions are paid by the seller, so the legal reality is that both agents have fiduciary responsibility to the seller - no the buyer. So, if the same agent is bringing in both the seller and the buyer - negotiate lower fees, a rebate on close, etc. In a slower market, this is all VERY easy to get.
If you are really concerned, then bring in a "buyers agent" that is paid by the buyer. No fees from the sale to be paid by the seller to the buying agent. The way to get these fees is of course to ask for a rebate on the close and pay the selling agent from these. OR negotiate a lower price and pay them from your own pocket the fees. |
|
greekgirl
 |
If an agent is representing both the buyer and seller, how can they have both of your best interests in mind? Get someone else to represent you. |
|
knowitall
|
'conflict of interest' springs to mind...he cant do good for both buyer and seller... |
|
DolphinLami
 |
Never ever. Conflict of interest. How will they get the buyer the best deal while they are getting the seller the most money for his property. |
|
Take My Advice
 |
This is usual protocol...I am an agent..but I personally do not like representing both sides.. |
|
arthur
|
I don't think it should ever take place. However, in some states it is legal w/ full written disclosure of all relationships to all properties.
In your case it does not sound legal, as you were not aware. However there was probably a clause in the purchase and sale agreement which stated agency relationships. The agent may have conveniently forgotten to explain that clause.
This is the case in the US. |
|
ALAN B
 |
He can. But don't. The estate agent has a vested interest, and will use only his contact which is most beneficial to him. Let him sell your property by all means, but for what work they do the cost is extortianate, but for the legal side - use your own lawyer. |
|
ogrendle
|
It is legal and should be disclosed early on---prior to first showing. Called Disclosed Dual Agency. Both buyer and seller have to sign off on this. At least in the US. Since you use 'Solicitor" I assume you are in the UK. Check local laws. |
|
nemesis
|
Its okay for an estate agent to represent buyer and seller. In fact, it is a lot easier in this situation as the estate agent can keep everything "under one roof" and not have to contact other estate agents.
In terms of solicitors, the buyer and seller cannot have the same solicitor. The Law Society has a rule which prohibits this. |
|
Bee ha
|
It is legal but I don't feel it's advisable. I would recommend that you use your own lawyer. There have been cases where they've pushed through the contract that is most beneficial to themselves. |
|
ticket2ride
|
As far as I'm aware, it is against the law for a solicitor to represent both the buyer and the seller - I'm not sure - if you are saying that the estate agent uses the same solicitor as your buyer, then that is completely irrelevant - you should never disclose who your solictor is to anyone, anyway, unless you have to as although they are supposed to be confidential, information seems to seep out from time to time... |
|
minita t
 |
No should not |
|
plezurgui
|
As long as it is disclosed that the agent is representing both sides, then I see nothing wrong with the arrangement. However, you must always regard the agent's suggestions as having the interest of the buyer at heart.
If the agent tries to get you to lower the price, you have to ask yourself if this is because the house is over priced or is the agent just trying to make a sale. The same problem can occur with an agent who only represents you. The commission reduction hurts the agent less than the price reduction hurts you.
Having said that, an over priced house which does not sell hurts you both! |
|
catcher
|
Many real estate agents are conmen and will resort to tactics. If in the past, you have not been getting successful purchasers, and now by hiring this agent, you have been visited by many buyers but each buyer wants to slash the price down by 30% ?
If the above has happened and you're not happy with the outcome, then back off. Hire another agent. The 'buyers' are not real buyers but a syndicate to soften the seller. By offering a property at 20% below market price, the buyer is compelled to pay huge commissions to the agent. So the agent reaps both ways.
You look like a novice in property. Hire an agency with a reputed name. |
|
ALEGNA
|
Personally, I dont see anything wrong with it! Your goal is to get home sold, and your hired a realtor to help you sell it for you! A realtor can list properties for sale as well as show buyers homes! If you ask me, this work out better for you BECAUSE, it give YOU negotiating power to lower the commission!!! I'm sure you had to offer your realtor commission to list your house, probably about 6% of the sales price, right? Then your realtor would have to offer 3% of the 6% to another realtor to bring in a buyer! Your negotiating power is that you can decrease the commission from 6% to 3%. But the worst that would happen is that he keeps the entire 6% because there are no other realtors involved! But to you its all the same!
The reason why it fell through would have absolutely nothing to do with your realtor! Remember, his goal is to sell your house...period! He does not get paid until it is sold! So, if he in fact were representing the buyers, then why did he not make that sale..so he get paid?!!! So, execessive demands might be in fact true!
I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with it! And i'm sorry, but no one has actually clearly explained their reasons why it's not right. I only hear personal opinions but not fully explaining why? |
|
james mallard
|
Is 10% an outlandish amont to pay an agent for getting a buyer to purchase property |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Renting & Real Estate 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
