I was on Trulia Voices this morning answering a question/comment from a Home Buyer. The question/comment basically was that Mr. Buyer is unhappy with his current agent, he feels that the agent is forceful with him and always asks Mr. Buyer after each and every showing if he is ready to put in an offer. Now the problem is that Mr. Buyer likes a home that the agent showed him but feels uncomfortable having the agent represent him.
So the question was: "I didn't sign a contract with this agent, can I go find my own agent at another firm and buy the place w/o consequence?"
Four agents including myself responded, the majority said that if the agent showed Mr. Buyer the home the agent is procuring cause and is therefore entitled to a commission. But then I came along and said no, ( I always have to be different) if the agent just showed Mr. Buyer the home the agent is not procuring cause, it is the agent that takes the Buyer through the transaction to the close that is procuring cause.
I remember it as though it were yesterday sitting in an Ethics class with the discussion going back and forth for about an hour and the instructor clearly stating that just showing a home is not procuring clause.
I even checked NAR and it states:
"Common misconceptions about NAR's Code of Ethics can lead to unnecessary disputes with fellow practitioners. Example: procuring cause.
Misunderstanding: Showing a property proves procuring cause and entitles you to a commission if your buyer purchases the home.
The real story: Procuring cause is a complex issue, and no one action ensures that you're entitled to compensation after a sale. Appendix II to Part 10 of the Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual gives a basic definition of procuring cause as "the uninterrupted series of causal events which results in the successful transaction." Neither showing the property nor having a buyer's representation agreement with the purchaser automatically demonstrates procuring cause."
But why can't we agree? Active Rain I would love to hear your comments.