Inman News wants to hear your perspective on the practice of dual agency and similar forms of representation in which one agent works with a seller and buyer in the same real estate sale.
Express your views:
- Do consumers understand dual agency and similar forms of representation? And if so, do they accept them?
- Is it possible for an agent to serve the interests of a buyer and a seller in the same transaction?
- Is it OK for two agents from the same office to adequately represent a buyer and seller, respectively, in the same transaction?
- When do dual agency and similar forms of representation work best for all parties?
- What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of dual agency and similar forms of representation?
https://www.inman.com/news/2011/09/7/the-dual-agency-debate
https://realtyconsults.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/the-dual-agency-debate/
i BELIEVE THIS QUESTIONED HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED AS FOLLOWS:
CONSUMER'S BE WARNED..... ARE YOU ARE GIVING UP THE FOLLOWING:
1. Loyalty - The undivided loyalty of your agent will be lost and he will no longer be acting in your best interest.
7. Duty to not be a part of any illegal act. - Dual agency and/or Multiple representation agreements are illegal, in that they breach the fiduciary and legal duty of an agent to his principal, UNLESS, the agent makes full and timely disclosure of all material facts, to all parties and receives their acknowledgment and consent in writing, he is not relieved of his fiduciary duty to the principal.
The Pitfalls of Duel Agency
THINK AGAIN...IF THE AGENT OWES A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO BOTH PARTIES, THE SELLER AND THE BUYER
This would mean that the agent could be sued by both parties for a breach of their fiduciary duty to either one of the parties or by both parties.
If the Standard Form Agreement of Purchase and Sale was used and the buyers or the agent failed to delete ambiguities contained therein that may favour the seller, or failed to insert the appropriate clauses to protect the buyer, could result in the buyer believing that his dual agent was actually favouring the seller interest as opposed to his interest and therefore in breach of his fiduciary duty to the buyer. This could result in a civil suit against the agent.
But the same scenario could apply whereby the seller believing the agent was favouring the buyer and breaching his fiduciary duty to the seller, could also result in a civil suite against the agent.
The agent is a dual agency relationship is walking thin and precarious line wherein everything they do or fail to do for either or both parties in a transaction may be suspect and examined closely for evidence of wrong doing on the part of the agent.
What happens with the duties of the “standard of care” and “due diligence” ?