On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:22:34 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 08/16/05 04:13 am quietguy tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

When we were looking for a house recently, we signed an exclusive
buyer's agency with a realtor (who happened to be an old friend of my
wife's family, otherwise we might well not have signed such an
agreement). One of the provisions in the standard contract form was that
if we bought a house (even if it was one we found ourselves) within some
specified time period (three months, I think), he was still to get his cut.

IMO, signing that would generally be a bad idea. The agent could have
been terrible, and he would still get paid. Not a good situation.
Plus this seems like a recipe for the agent to get lazy since he knows
you are stuck with him

That is a pretty silly thing to do - why would you do that? A senior moment?

Perhaps it wasn't as long as three months; but, whatever it was, it was
the wording on the standard pre-printed form.

And appointing a *buyer's* agent meant that he was working for *us*
rather than on behalf of the listing agent and the seller. So there were
houses we saw in which he was able to point out faults or tell us that
they were overpriced. Unless we appointed him as *our* agent, he
wouldn't have been able to do that.

Perce

Why wouldn't he be able to do that?

I have utilized the services of a buyers agent with the last 2 homes I
have bought. I used the same agent both times, and was never asked to
sign anything ahead of time. She was able to tell me everything she
knew about the property. Also, in the state where I live, if there
are known faults with the property, the seller is required by law to
disclose those to any potential buyer. If the agent says he is
representing you only, then there should be no need for a contract
ahead of time. When he shows you the right place and you decide to
make an offer, then get out the pen.