Andrew White wrote:
Too many details, I quit reading 1/3 of the way through. Here's my
take: if the agent has shown you ANY properties and if the agent is
HELPING you with this purchase, such as writing/reviewing contracts,
helping arrange inspections, providing advice, being present at
inspections, closings, etc., then this agent is entitled to a FULL
commission that is customary in your area. It makes ZERO difference
whether you found the property or not.

If you didn't make a different arrangement, and if he's willing to
reduce the commission in half, you're a very lucky person. But you're
obviously a very greedy and dishonest person, because you're trying to
cheat your agent out of his hard-earned money.

Too bad you didn't read the rest of the details. Sometimes it's the
details that make the difference. If you had read further you would
have discovered that OP _didn't_ use the agent's services for writing
contracts, inspections, etc. Now it's possible that he would be
better off if he _did_ use them, but he's not legally or morally
obliged to use them.

And an agent who helps a buyer find a property is usually compensated
by the _seller_. If the seller isn't willing to pay at least part of
the normal commission, the agent is out of luck unless he has a
contract with the buyer. That's why most agents won't show "FSBO"
properties unless the add contains wording like "broker cooperation"
(which means the seller will pay the buyer's agent's half of the
usual commission in the area).

I think OP's plan to offer the agent $1000 is fair, perhaps even a
little generous.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.