Huh? Read on.
My Partner and I subscribe to a lot of legal newsletters and reviews concerning the real estate industry, and some of the court cases that it covers are absolutely amazing. For example, take the case of Amador Zuazua v. Tom and Carol Tibbles, decided by the Montana Supreme Court in February 2007.
WARNING
Comment at your own risk. If you comment here,
be prepared for me to visit and comment at your place,
usually within 7-10 days. So please,
have something for me to read and comment on.
Thanks!
Seems that a buyer's agent put in a purchase offer
on the same property
for two different buyers
at the same time!
Huh?
The Montana Supreme Court ruled that state statutes disallowed a buyer's agent from representing two buyers buying the same property at the same time. Well, duh! Apparently Montana laws require that a buyer's agent "act solely in the best interests of the buyer." Well duh! yet again. How can you do that for two different buyers on the same property at the same time?
Out here I can represent both the seller and the buyer on the same property, which I think is a severe conflict of interest, notwithstanding the fact that it can be very lucrative financially, but to represent two different buyers on the same property at the same time?
How creative!! One could get a better commission by pitting the two buyers against each other to drive up the purchase price. I repeat, How Creative!!
What's even more amazing to me is that the Montana Association of Realtors, Inc., filed a brief in support of the buyer's agent. Huh?????
If I had been the buyer's agent, I would have presented the first offer and, if it had fallen through, then presented the second offer, but not simultaneously.
Fortunately, the Montana Supreme Court correctly determined that one cannot "act solely in the best interests of the buyer" when there are two buyers.
What part of "solely" and the singular "buyer" did the buyer's agent, and the Montana Association of Realtors, not understand?
Some of Jim's blog entries
Comments(5)