Recently, I heard about an interesting case involving two real estate agents in Metrowest Massachusetts. " Agent A" was speaking to a buyer prospect over the phone. After hearing the prospect's requirements, "Agent A" suggested he visit an open house listed by "Agent B".
The buyer prospect liked the home, and decided to make an offer. "Agent B" claimed that she had rights to the buy and sell side of the deal since the buyer came to her open house without an agent. What makes this even more interesting is that "Agent A" and "Agent B" work for the same broker.
There was no buyer's agreement signed between "Agent A" and the buyer. Therefore, I suppose that "Agent B" may be acting legally, but I personally don't believe it passes the smell test.
If I were the listing agent, I would've let "Agent A" represent the buy side. That would've been the right thing to do in my opinion.
Given "Agent B's" slimy tactics, I'd try to avoid working with "Agent B." She can't be trusted. My guess is that other Central Massachusetts real estate agents probably feel the same way. Real Estate agents talk, and word gets out. Certainly "Agent A" will be reluctant to show "Agent B's" listings going forward.
"Agent B" might've gained an extra $5,000 by claiming both sides of this deal, but was it really worth it?
What's your opinion? Please feel free to comment especially if you disagree with my opinion about this case. Thanks.
Comments (3)Subscribe to CommentsComment