| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 60266 | 2005-07-27 06:07:00 | OT Real Estate Legal/Ethical Query | willbry (1555) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 375878 | 2005-07-27 06:07:00 | 1. A house is up for sale and given to a sole agent for a specified period of time. 2. The agent shows the house to potential buyer X. 3. the period of sole agency expires and the house has not sold. 4. X now independently approaches the vendor with an offer which the vendor accepts 5. Because the agent initially showed the property to x, is the vendor bound to pay the agent the appropriate commission on the sale of the house to X, while acknowedging that the sole agency contract between the vendor and agent has now expired? |
willbry (1555) | ||
| 375879 | 2005-07-27 06:17:00 | If you read the contract that you signed with the agency you will find that will be the case. YES the agent will want their pound of flesh as after all the did introduce the buyer to the property orginally. Get the buyer to buy it thru an intermediary? Otherwise you'll have to cough Gee I hope you didn't split the difference in the price if you thought you wern't paying a fee. My guess is the agent will find out and come knocking. |
EX-WESTY (221) | ||
| 375880 | 2005-07-27 06:18:00 | You're on shaky ground if the agent introduced the prospective purchaser and it's a relatively short time since expiry of the agency. It could be argued that X & Y, deliberately conspired to deprive the agent of his/her commission or, that the purchaser has benefited from the agents introduction. Did the agent personally introduce the parties, or was the viewing of the property by the purchaser via an open home? What are the reasons that the original introduction failed and, did any negotiation take place? Edit: Yes, getting some other entity to purchase as Z or nominee may work, but I'd not transfer the property for a while, move in and rent is an option (if you're the purchaser). Agents generally know what sales are registered in their area. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 375881 | 2005-07-27 08:57:00 | Willbry, you haven't said how long the agent had sole agency - or how soon after its expiry the offer came. If both were brief, the agent who introduced the buyer is entitled to the fee - no question - even if the seller would no doubt prefer to get out of that. Any different outcome would depend on different timing - and we know nothing of that or the background? Working through an intermediary buyer has its own perils...many of them. So if you want from PressF1 the sort of expert real estate advice you'd get from a solicitor, you need to be less vague & add something more explicit. Every case is different, after all. |
Laura (43) | ||
| 375882 | 2005-07-27 08:59:00 | Geez - I really feel for the real estate agent in this situation... working in property, the worst thing that could happen is working hard for something and not being rewarded appropriately. I'd be interested in knowing how long the agency lasted and how long after it ended before you approached the vendor. I don't think you would've met the vendor without firstly engaging the real estate agent. While the agent might not deserve a full sole agency fee, he/she would be worth the general fee at the very least. Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 375883 | 2005-07-27 09:21:00 | Lohsing & I seem to have similar ideas on this. When I last sold a property, I could possibly have disputed the real estate agent's fee I paid as vendor - purley by co-incidence about the buyer NOT being introduced by him. But he'd done me a thoroughly professional job in every respect. He was entitled to his fee after the time he'd outlayed & the money his firm spent on advertising. I'd have been ashamed to argue it. |
Laura (43) | ||
| 375884 | 2005-07-27 13:46:00 | Agents generally know what sales are registered in their area. That's correct - they have access to the REINZ database which records every property transaction. (damn useful info it contains too if you're buying privately!) |
Greg (193) | ||
| 375885 | 2005-07-27 19:19:00 | The info I was given is that you have to wait till the listing is closed and that you must inform the real estate agent you had been dealing with of the name of the prospective buyer. It may vary with different real estate agencies however. But in having said that, I think that kind of behaviour is even lower than the questionable tactics that many real estate agents are guilty of. |
MMM (5660) | ||
| 375886 | 2005-07-27 19:47:00 | Thanks everyone for your comments. They generally bear out what I expected. By the way , I'm not personally involved in any such deal . a friend asked me if i could find out and of course , as ever, you can just about find out anything on Press F1 Thanks again willbry |
willbry (1555) | ||
| 375887 | 2005-07-28 01:40:00 | Good advice. Normally sole agencies are for 3 months but it does vary. However the duration is irrelevant. If the buyer was introduced to the property through real estate advertising or an open home, then the agent is legally entitled to claim commission for a later private sale. Case law supports agents claims for sales up to at least a year after the end of the sole agency agrement. But only where the buyer was introduced in some way by the agency. And only if the terms and conditions of sale are largely similar to the original listing. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1 | |||||