Several real estate salespersons and associate brokers violated the regulation requiring them to list the business name and telephone number of their employing broker in advertisements, where the advertisements each contained the name of the employing broker and one telephone number, which, although purchased by the employing broker, provides a direct connection to the salesperson or associate broker featured in the advertisement, and where directory assistance provides a different number appearing in none of the advertisements for the employing broker. Campo v. State Real Estate Commission, 723 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
An advertisement failed to meet the requirements of subsection (b) where telephone numbers, owned and maintained by the employing broker but assigned to various salespeople to answer, were displayed in the advertisement, and the numbers provided in the advertisements did not match the telephone numbers given by directory assistance for the employing broker. D’Alonzo v. State Real Estate Commission, 702 A.2d 1102 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
The court found ample authority in the Real Estate Licensing and Regulation Act for the State Real Estate Commission’s promulgation of a regulation requiring the employing broker’s telephone number in advertisements, where employing brokers are required to supervise employed salespersons and associate brokers, and misleading advertisements are forbidden; the regulation advances the twin aims of employe supervision and prevention of public misconception by providing the public with unfettered access to the employe’s supervisor, and it also prevents the public from mistakenly believing that the salesperson or associate broker is self-employed. Campo v. State Real Estate Commission, 723 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
Comments(1)