Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

In article , "john" wrote:
Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

What do you hope to accomplish? The contract the seller has with the realtor
almost certainly specifies that the realtor's commission is due when the house
sells -- without regard to whether the realtor originated the sale or not.
Furthermore, you can't "bypass the realtor" anyway without the seller's
consent: the realtor's contractual relationship is with the *seller*, not with
the buyer, and there is *nothing* you can do to alter that. The seller is
under no obligation to talk to you.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

john wrote:
: Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
: directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
: phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

I got my house when the other interested buyer contacted the seller
directly. The seller was suspicious and felt that this person was
trying to take advantage of their inexperience without their realtor
there to protect them, and the realtor was ****ed because they had
tried to go behind her back. So they sold the house to me even though
my offer was slightly less, because they didn't want to deal with the
other guy.

Just once experience, your milage may vary.

--- Chip

On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:56:32 GMT, someone wrote:

.....The seller is
under no obligation to talk to you.

However, he is not prohibeted from talking to you either.

The broker likely has an exclusive right to sell during the listing,
and usually is also entitled to a commission for some period
afterwards, for persons who were "introduced" to the property during
the listing.

So if you want to put the Seller's ethics to the test, go ahead and
acll him. That in itself isn't "illegal". What made you think the
house was for sale, did you see a broker's sign? Then the broker has
arguably introduced you to the property for purposes of his/her
listing agreement with the Seller.

In that case, the Seller would be on the hook with the broker (what
are you trying to do?).

If there is no broker and it is just a random property that you'd like
to buy, sure, go ahead and call them. Is there some particular reason
you think they'd be interested? I have known of bargain hunters, cash
buyers, who go around looking for houses that exhibet a lack of
maintenance, or houses whose owners have recently died or gone to a
nursing home, to see if someone wants to unload and give them a deal.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

Tue, 1 May 2007 13:07:52 -0400 from john john111111_
:
Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

It's okay for *you* -- you have no obligation to the seller's
realtor. The seller may have to pay a commission to the realtor even
if the two of you end up doing a sale, but that's the seller's
problem and not yours.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

On May 1, 1:36 pm, "Charles Buchholtz"
wrote:
john wrote:

: Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
: directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
: phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

I got my house when the other interested buyer contacted the seller
directly. The seller was suspicious and felt that this person was
trying to take advantage of their inexperience without their realtor
there to protect them, and the realtor was ****ed because they had
tried to go behind her back. So they sold the house to me even though
my offer was slightly less, because they didn't want to deal with the
other guy.

Just once experience, your milage may vary.

--- Chip


Good example of what I have told people many times. If you start
doing
things that bring your ethics into question, you run the risk of the
seller,
choosing to pass on you because they think they could be headed for
lots of trouble.

On May 1, 12:56 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "john"


What do you hope to accomplish?

eee ???? save some money cutting out the middleman ? make sure u do
your homework first and then act ...

The contract the seller has with the realtor
almost certainly specifies that the realtor's commission is due when the house
sells -- without regard to whether the realtor originated the sale or not.

Crap ..there are many ways of signing contract with realtor
http://www.realestateabc.com/homesel...stingtypes.htm


Furthermore, you can't "bypass the realtor" anyway without the seller's
consent:

That's why he wants to contact him to obtain that consent

the realtor's contractual relationship is with the *seller*, not with
the buyer, and there is *nothing* you can do to alter that.

Yeah rite ...

The seller is under no obligation to talk to you.

Of course not but it is worth trying, if you are a serious educated
customer

On May 1, 11:07 am, "john"
wrote:
Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

If the property is listed with a real estate agent the seller will be
obligated to pay the real estate agent a commission even if you
contact the seller directly and work out a deal. The real estate agent
will reduce that agreement to writing in the form of a contract and
will contact you to sign the contract, so why not use the real estate
agent from the start? Or better yet retain your own real estate agent
to work for you as a Buyers agent, protecting your interests,
educating you on the process of purchasing a home and what homes are
selling for in the area.

phuffty

One reason sellers contract with real estate agents is so that they
(sellers) do not have to deal with "bargain hunters".

Una

In article om, Dycha wrote:
On May 1, 12:56 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "john"


What do you hope to accomplish?

eee ???? save some money cutting out the middleman ? make sure u do
your homework first and then act ...

How's that going to save any money? The realtor's contract is with the seller,
not with the buyer.

The contract the seller has with the realtor
almost certainly specifies that the realtor's commission is due when the
house
sells -- without regard to whether the realtor originated the sale or not.

Crap ..there are many ways of signing contract with realtor
http://www.realestateabc.com/homesel...stingtypes.htm

Again -- the seller has already listed the house with the realtor. Whatever
the terms of the listing contract may be, the buyer cannot alter them.


Furthermore, you can't "bypass the realtor" anyway without the seller's
consent:

That's why he wants to contact him to obtain that consent

Perhaps -- but that's not what he said.

the realtor's contractual relationship is with the *seller*, not with
the buyer, and there is *nothing* you can do to alter that.

Yeah rite ...

Please explain how the buyer can alter the contract between the seller and the
seller's realtor. Be specific. Give details.

The seller is under no obligation to talk to you.

Of course not but it is worth trying, if you are a serious educated
customer

One wonders how many homes you've bought or sold...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On May 2, 2:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article om, Dycha wrote:
On May 1, 12:56 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "john"

What do you hope to accomplish?

eee ???? save some money cutting out the middleman ? make sure u do
your homework first and then act ...

How's that going to save any money? The realtor's contract is with the seller,
not with the buyer.



Listing contract includes among other things : "A beginning date and a
termination date"
Wait until termination date sell/buy directly and save whatever %
agent charges

"The terms and conditions under which the brokerage fee shall be paid
by the seller."

If the customer from the street wants to but it ..is an agent still
entitled to the fee ? craft the contract accordingly so that it gives
you enough room for flexibility...





The contract the seller has with the realtor
almost certainly specifies that the realtor's commission is due when the
house
sells -- without regard to whether the realtor originated the sale or not.

Crap ..there are many ways of signing contract with realtor
http://www.realestateabc.com/homesel...stingtypes.htm

Again -- the seller has already listed the house with the realtor. Whatever
the terms of the listing contract may be, the buyer cannot alter them.


Read above ..it is so simple ...





Furthermore, you can't "bypass the realtor" anyway without the seller's
consent:

That's why he wants to contact him to obtain that consent

Perhaps -- but that's not what he said.


That's exactly what he wants...it is easy to say "CAN'T" to little
people hoping they will follow the 'rulez'.. aint it ?



the realtor's contractual relationship is with the *seller*, not with
the buyer, and there is *nothing* you can do to alter that.

Yeah rite ...


Specifics listed above. Listing contract is not a word .. it is a
piece of legal agreement that specifies rights and duties of both
parties. If somebody is dumb enough to craft it so that agent is
entitled to a fee regardeless of circumstances .. then well ..get a
GED..


Please explain how the buyer can alter the contract between the seller and the
seller's realtor. Be specific. Give details.



The seller is under no obligation to talk to you.

Of course not but it is worth trying, if you are a serious educated
customer

One wonders how many homes you've bought or sold...


It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, Dycha wrote:
On May 2, 2:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article om, Dycha
wrote:
On May 1, 12:56 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "john"

What do you hope to accomplish?

eee ???? save some money cutting out the middleman ? make sure u do
your homework first and then act ...

How's that going to save any money? The realtor's contract is with the
seller,
not with the buyer.



Listing contract includes among other things : "A beginning date and a
termination date"
Wait until termination date sell/buy directly and save whatever %
agent charges

Maybe ... IF the house doesn't sell in the meantime. IF the seller doesn't
immediately re-list with the same (or another) realtor. IF ... IF ... IF ...

"The terms and conditions under which the brokerage fee shall be paid
by the seller."

If the customer from the street wants to but it ..is an agent still
entitled to the fee ?

Most listing contracts do specify that, yes.

craft the contract accordingly so that it gives
you enough room for flexibility...

The seller is of course free to structure the contract any way that pleases
him. And the listing realtor is equally free to decline to sign it.

The contract the seller has with the realtor
almost certainly specifies that the realtor's commission is due when the
house
sells -- without regard to whether the realtor originated the sale or not.

Crap ..there are many ways of signing contract with realtor
http://www.realestateabc.com/homesel...stingtypes.htm

Again -- the seller has already listed the house with the realtor. Whatever
the terms of the listing contract may be, the buyer cannot alter them.


Read above ..it is so simple ...

Indeed, it is very simple: the listing agent has no obligation to sign a
contract that he thinks is insufficiently favorable to his interests.

Furthermore, you can't "bypass the realtor" anyway without the seller's
consent:

That's why he wants to contact him to obtain that consent

Perhaps -- but that's not what he said.

That's exactly what he wants...it is easy to say "CAN'T" to little
people hoping they will follow the 'rulez'.. aint it ?

It *is* a fact that the buyer *can't* alter the terms of the listing contract,
because that contract is between the seller and the realtor, and the buyer is
not a party to it.

You think otherwise? You're of course free to try that. Let us know how it
works out.

the realtor's contractual relationship is with the *seller*, not with
the buyer, and there is *nothing* you can do to alter that.

Yeah rite ...


Specifics listed above. Listing contract is not a word .. it is a
piece of legal agreement that specifies rights and duties of both
parties. If somebody is dumb enough to craft it so that agent is
entitled to a fee regardeless of circumstances .. then well ..get a
GED..

It doesn't appear that you have much experience with real estate listing
contracts, or indeed with contracts of any sort.

Put whatever provisions you please in any contract you're trying to negotiate.
But don't delude yourself that the other party is obligated to cooperate in
your fantasies.


Please explain how the buyer can alter the contract between the seller and
the
seller's realtor. Be specific. Give details.



The seller is under no obligation to talk to you.

Of course not but it is worth trying, if you are a serious educated
customer

One wonders how many homes you've bought or sold...


It does not matter ..

It matters very much. You're clearly an armchair theorist who hasn't ever
negotiated a real estate listing contract in the real world -- probably live
in an apartment, or in Mom and Dad's basement.

I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

No "holes" in my reasoning at all -- the house the OP is looking at already is
listed with a realtor. Ergo, a listing contract between the seller and the
realtor already exists. Such contracts typically state that the realtor's
commission is due when the house sells, without regard to *how* the sale was
accomplished. The buyer is not a party to that contract, and has no power to
alter the commission structure, or any other provision of the contract.

Mo the *seller* has no power to unilaterally alter the provisions of that
contract, either. A contract is a contract, and cannot be altered unless both
parties agree to the alteration.

And right there is where theory has an abrupt collision with the real world:
the realtor isn't terribly likely to agree to alter the contract in such a way
as to reduce his own compensation.

You seem to think that the buyer can manage to bring that about somehow. Why
don't you try it some time, and get back to us on how it works?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On May 3, 10:22 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, Dycha wrote:
On May 2, 2:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article om, Dycha
wrote:
On May 1, 12:56 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "john"

What do you hope to accomplish?

eee ???? save some money cutting out the middleman ? make sure u do
your homework first and then act ...

How's that going to save any money? The realtor's contract is with the
seller,
not with the buyer.

Listing contract includes among other things : "A beginning date and a
termination date"
Wait until termination date sell/buy directly and save whatever %
agent charges

Maybe ... IF the house doesn't sell in the meantime. IF the seller doesn't
immediately re-list with the same (or another) realtor. IF ... IF ... IF ...



"The terms and conditions under which the brokerage fee shall be paid
by the seller."

If the customer from the street wants to but it ..is an agent still
entitled to the fee ?

Most listing contracts do specify that, yes.


Most does not mean all .. and it does not mean that you cannot include
that provision in the agreement to have an option to sell to
anybody....halllooooo ?

craft the contract accordingly so that it gives
you enough room for flexibility...

The seller is of course free to structure the contract any way that pleases
him. And the listing realtor is equally free to decline to sign it.

get another listing agent. In free economy agent cannot have exclusive
right to commission even if the house was bough by somebody whom he
never met/advised/showed the house to etc ...and agents do understand
that



The contract the seller has with the realtor
almost certainly specifies that the realtor's commission is due when the
house
sells -- without regard to whether the realtor originated the sale or not.

Crap ..there are many ways of signing contract with realtor
http://www.realestateabc.com/homesel...stingtypes.htm

Again -- the seller has already listed the house with the realtor. Whatever
the terms of the listing contract may be, the buyer cannot alter them.

Read above ..it is so simple ...

Indeed, it is very simple: the listing agent has no obligation to sign a
contract that he thinks is insufficiently favorable to his interests.

so screw him ..find another one who will do the same job..




Furthermore, you can't "bypass the realtor" anyway without the seller's
consent:

That's why he wants to contact him to obtain that consent

Perhaps -- but that's not what he said.

That's exactly what he wants...it is easy to say "CAN'T" to little
people hoping they will follow the 'rulez'.. aint it ?

It *is* a fact that the buyer *can't* alter the terms of the listing contract,
because that contract is between the seller and the realtor, and the buyer is
not a party to it.

You think otherwise? You're of course free to try that. Let us know how it
works out.



I am done explaining that you should be wise ahead of time and include
your own provisions in the contract. The Op wanted to call the seller
and ask : does your contract is exclusive or not .. if not then we
might do some business here ... " extremely simple for me ..



the realtor's contractual relationship is with the *seller*, not with
the buyer, and there is *nothing* you can do to alter that.

Yeah rite ...

Specifics listed above. Listing contract is not a word .. it is a
piece of legal agreement that specifies rights and duties of both
parties. If somebody is dumb enough to craft it so that agent is
entitled to a fee regardeless of circumstances .. then well ..get a
GED..

It doesn't appear that you have much experience with real estate listing
contracts, or indeed with contracts of any sort.

Put whatever provisions you please in any contract you're trying to negotiate.
But don't delude yourself that the other party is obligated to cooperate in
your fantasies.


so you are saying that whatever contract listing agent has ...seller HAS
TO sign it ... no questions asked .. did you take your pills today ?







Please explain how the buyer can alter the contract between the seller and
the
seller's realtor. Be specific. Give details.

The seller is under no obligation to talk to you.

Of course not but it is worth trying, if you are a serious educated
customer

One wonders how many homes you've bought or sold...

It does not matter ..

It matters very much. You're clearly an armchair theorist who hasn't ever
negotiated a real estate listing contract in the real world -- probably live
in an apartment, or in Mom and Dad's basement.


Occasionally I live with your mom in your basement ;-)


I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

No "holes" in my reasoning at all -- the house the OP is looking at already is
listed with a realtor. Ergo, a listing contract between the seller and the
realtor already exists.

Do you know the type of contract, specifics ? No! so how come you can
infer about the rights of seller if you know shaaait about
provisions??


Such contracts typically state that the realtor's
commission is due when the house sells, without regard to *how* the sale was
accomplished.

People typically overpay for many services because they are too dumb
or lazy to think beforehand


The buyer is not a party to that contract, and has no power to
alter the commission structure, or any other provision of the contract.

WTF ? DID I say that buyer wants to change something in the
contract??? he wants to check with the seller what type of contract
seller signed - hence the initial question about contact.....is it so
hard to grasp ?



Mo the *seller* has no power to unilaterally alter the provisions of that
contract, either. A contract is a contract, and cannot be altered unless both
parties agree to the alteration.


"A contract is a contract"....typical approach of newly minted GED ... a
contract is an agreement which you have a right to negotiate ..it is a
legally binding document .. you are not opening an account at Chase
and negotiate your checking account agreement .. good luck on that ..
you are selling your home and there are many listing agents ..do you
feel the difference ?



And right there is where theory has an abrupt collision with the real world:
the realtor isn't terribly likely to agree to alter the contract in such a way
as to reduce his own compensation.


Idea is simple: if you bring me the customer I pay .. If I bring the
customer ..no money for you as simple as that...why would I pay somebody
for my effort ?

You seem to think that the buyer can manage to bring that about somehow. Why
don't you try it some time, and get back to us on how it works?

--

It works perfectly in a few states I manage my real estates and is a
common practice in Europe, which you probably think is another state
southeast from Indiana ?

EOM on that !





Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article .com, Dycha wrote:
On May 3, 10:22 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, Dycha
wrote:
On May 2, 2:50 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article om, Dycha
wrote:
On May 1, 12:56 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "john"

What do you hope to accomplish?

eee ???? save some money cutting out the middleman ? make sure u do
your homework first and then act ...

How's that going to save any money? The realtor's contract is with the
seller,
not with the buyer.

Listing contract includes among other things : "A beginning date and a
termination date"
Wait until termination date sell/buy directly and save whatever %
agent charges

Maybe ... IF the house doesn't sell in the meantime. IF the seller doesn't
immediately re-list with the same (or another) realtor. IF ... IF ... IF ...



"The terms and conditions under which the brokerage fee shall be paid
by the seller."

If the customer from the street wants to but it ..is an agent still
entitled to the fee ?

Most listing contracts do specify that, yes.


Most does not mean all .. and it does not mean that you cannot include
that provision in the agreement to have an option to sell to
anybody....halllooooo ?

Let's review.

The OP is asking about bypassing the realtor, on a house that is *already*
listed with a realtor.

That means that a listing contract between the seller and the realtor
*already*exists*.

And the buyer can't alter the terms of that contract.

Which part of this is hard for you?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, Dycha wrote:


"A contract is a contract"....typical approach of newly minted GED ... a
contract is an agreement which you have a right to negotiate ..it is a
legally binding document .. you are not opening an account at Chase
and negotiate your checking account agreement .. good luck on that ..
you are selling your home and there are many listing agents ..do you
feel the difference ?

Are you really so dense that you do not realize that the listing contract is
between the seller and the realtor, and the buyer is not a party to it?

What the OP wants to do is try to RE-negotiate that contract.

And HE CAN'T DO THAT. He's not a party to it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com,
Dycha wrote:
It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

Why would the buyer save some $$$? It's the seller who would save $$$,
and he has no reason to give any of that to the buyer.



--
--Tim Smith

On May 3, 8:48 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, Dycha wrote:

"A contract is a contract"....typical approach of newly minted GED ... a
contract is an agreement which you have a right to negotiate ..it is a
legally binding document .. you are not opening an account at Chase
and negotiate your checking account agreement .. good luck on that ..
you are selling your home and there are many listing agents ..do you
feel the difference ?

Are you really so dense that you do not realize that the listing contract is
between the seller and the realtor, and the buyer is not a party to it?

What the OP wants to do is try to RE-negotiate that contract.

And HE CAN'T DO THAT. He's not a party to it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


I think what Dycha is suggesting is that there is the possibility that
the existing contract allows the seller to sell the house to someone
without the real estate agent receiving a commission:

"If the customer from the street wants to but it ..is an agent still
entitled to the fee ? craft the contract accordingly so that it gives
you enough room for flexibility... "

And that brings us back to your previous comment questioning what real
world experience Dycha has. It would be almost unheard of to have a
listing agreement that says the real estate agent isn't entitled to a
commission if the customer is from the street. If that were allowed,
they would lose commissions right and left. For example, suppose the
real estate agent runs a nice picture ad in the local paper, that they
pay for. Someone sees it, drives over to the house, and says "Hi, I
just walked in from the street....." So, now the agent gets no
commission? There are dozens of scenarios like this where the agent
gets screwed, which is why to even suggest this kind of thing might be
found in the real world shows a total lack of practical experience.

Sure, there is some chance that a listing contract allows exclusion of
a "customer from the street", because the seller negotiated that into
the contract. It's about the same probability that I can walk up to
the Avis counter at the airport and negotiate a rental contract,
without paying for insurance, where if the car gets wrecked I'm not
responsible for it.

And as seller, if a buyer came at me out of the box trying to figure
out if they can buy it by cutting out the real estate agent, it would
be one strike against them. I'd be thinking, they're trying to do
anything to save $$, today they want to cut out the real estate
agent. Two weeks from now, after I've ****ed off the agent, they'll
be screwing me, like after inspection demanding I fix $20K worth of
stuff that really ain;t broken.

On May 3, 9:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:
In article . com,

Dycha wrote:
It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

Why would the buyer save some $$$? It's the seller who would save $$$,
and he has no reason to give any of that to the buyer.

It would go something like this:

Seller and agent list house for $100,000. Agent gets 7% ($7000) if it
sells. Buyer pays $100,000 and seller gets $93,000.

Buyer off the street comes in and says to seller "I will buy for
$95,000 straight up and screw the agent." Buyer pays $95,000 ($5000
less) and seller gets $95,000.($2000 more).

In article .com, wrote:
On May 3, 8:48 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, Dycha
wrote:

"A contract is a contract"....typical approach of newly minted GED ... a
contract is an agreement which you have a right to negotiate ..it is a
legally binding document .. you are not opening an account at Chase
and negotiate your checking account agreement .. good luck on that ..
you are selling your home and there are many listing agents ..do you
feel the difference ?

Are you really so dense that you do not realize that the listing contract is
between the seller and the realtor, and the buyer is not a party to it?

What the OP wants to do is try to RE-negotiate that contract.

And HE CAN'T DO THAT. He's not a party to it.

I think what Dycha is suggesting is that there is the possibility that
the existing contract allows the seller to sell the house to someone
without the real estate agent receiving a commission:

"If the customer from the street wants to but it ..is an agent still
entitled to the fee ? craft the contract accordingly so that it gives
you enough room for flexibility... "

Right, I understand that. He's missing two critical parts, though. The first
is that *whatever* the existing contract states, is already agreed to. If it
does allow the buyer to do what the OP wants, well and good -- but if it
doesn't, the buyer is SOL. The contract already exists, and the buyer can do
nothing to change it.

The second thing he's missing is what you point out below.

And that brings us back to your previous comment questioning what real
world experience Dycha has. It would be almost unheard of to have a
listing agreement that says the real estate agent isn't entitled to a
commission if the customer is from the street. If that were allowed,
they would lose commissions right and left. For example, suppose the
real estate agent runs a nice picture ad in the local paper, that they
pay for. Someone sees it, drives over to the house, and says "Hi, I
just walked in from the street....." So, now the agent gets no
commission? There are dozens of scenarios like this where the agent
gets screwed, which is why to even suggest this kind of thing might be
found in the real world shows a total lack of practical experience.

Bingo!


Sure, there is some chance that a listing contract allows exclusion of
a "customer from the street", because the seller negotiated that into
the contract. It's about the same probability that I can walk up to
the Avis counter at the airport and negotiate a rental contract,
without paying for insurance, where if the car gets wrecked I'm not
responsible for it.

And as seller, if a buyer came at me out of the box trying to figure
out if they can buy it by cutting out the real estate agent, it would
be one strike against them. I'd be thinking, they're trying to do
anything to save $$, today they want to cut out the real estate
agent. Two weeks from now, after I've ****ed off the agent, they'll
be screwing me, like after inspection demanding I fix $20K worth of
stuff that really ain;t broken.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, WDS wrote:
On May 3, 9:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:
In article . com,

Dycha wrote:
It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

Why would the buyer save some $$$? It's the seller who would save $$$,
and he has no reason to give any of that to the buyer.

It would go something like this:

Seller and agent list house for $100,000. Agent gets 7% ($7000) if it
sells. Buyer pays $100,000 and seller gets $93,000.

Buyer off the street comes in and says to seller "I will buy for
$95,000 straight up and screw the agent." Buyer pays $95,000 ($5000
less) and seller gets $95,000.($2000 more).

Whereupon the agent sues the seller for the $6,650 that he's now due under the
listing contract, plus legal fees.

After losing the suit, and paying for both his own attorney *and* the agent's,
seller winds up netting about $75K and a whole lotta hassle.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 3, 8:48 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, Dycha
wrote:

"A contract is a contract"....typical approach of newly minted GED ... a
contract is an agreement which you have a right to negotiate ..it is a
legally binding document .. you are not opening an account at Chase
and negotiate your checking account agreement .. good luck on that ..
you are selling your home and there are many listing agents ..do you
feel the difference ?

Are you really so dense that you do not realize that the listing contract
is
between the seller and the realtor, and the buyer is not a party to it?

What the OP wants to do is try to RE-negotiate that contract.

And HE CAN'T DO THAT. He's not a party to it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


I think what Dycha is suggesting is that there is the possibility that
the existing contract allows the seller to sell the house to someone
without the real estate agent receiving a commission:

"If the customer from the street wants to but it ..is an agent still
entitled to the fee ? craft the contract accordingly so that it gives
you enough room for flexibility... "

And that brings us back to your previous comment questioning what real
world experience Dycha has. It would be almost unheard of to have a
listing agreement that says the real estate agent isn't entitled to a
commission if the customer is from the street. If that were allowed,
they would lose commissions right and left. For example, suppose the
real estate agent runs a nice picture ad in the local paper, that they
pay for. Someone sees it, drives over to the house, and says "Hi, I
just walked in from the street....." So, now the agent gets no
commission? There are dozens of scenarios like this where the agent
gets screwed, which is why to even suggest this kind of thing might be
found in the real world shows a total lack of practical experience.

Sure, there is some chance that a listing contract allows exclusion of
a "customer from the street", because the seller negotiated that into
the contract. It's about the same probability that I can walk up to
the Avis counter at the airport and negotiate a rental contract,
without paying for insurance, where if the car gets wrecked I'm not
responsible for it.

And as seller, if a buyer came at me out of the box trying to figure
out if they can buy it by cutting out the real estate agent, it would
be one strike against them. I'd be thinking, they're trying to do
anything to save $$, today they want to cut out the real estate
agent. Two weeks from now, after I've ****ed off the agent, they'll
be screwing me, like after inspection demanding I fix $20K worth of
stuff that really ain;t broken.

well, maybe. i sold my last house as a fsbo. after a month or so of trying
(i put it on the market the weekend before 9/11), we signed a realtor
contract that stated that he would only charge us 1% instead of 6% if anyone
we brought in through our previous openhouses actually purchased.

in the end, that's what happened. the 1% paid for him to do all the
paperwork.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

On May 1, 10:07 am, "john"
wrote:
Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
phone book and call him? is that ok to do?


I remember that when I bought my first house even though there was a
realtor involved it was me and the seller who did almost everything.
Because I did not have a "buyer's agent" the freaking Remax realtor
wanted to take the inexistent realtor's share as well and got ****ed
when I said NO, that I would do my part of the deal. She tried to
sabotage the deal by delaying the offer negotiations between me and
the seller, who agreed in discounting the "buyer's agent" fee from the
price. So, since I had gone to the house directly and the seller
introduced me to the agent later (as good ethics dictate) the agent
showed to have none and the deal might not have gone through if I had
not talked with the seller directly.

A guy I know also had similar problem. But his was that the realtor
wanted the house for a friend of hers and was delaying to show his
offer to the seller. She only showed the offer (which was accepted
by the seller) after he spoke with the seller directly and threatened
her with a lawsuit.

So, in cases like the above I do not see any problem in talking
directly to the homeowner. If it is just to "have a price cut",
absolutely not.

On May 4, 6:01 am, WDS wrote:
On May 3, 9:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:

In article . com,

Dycha wrote:
It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

Why would the buyer save some $$$? It's the seller who would save $$$,
and he has no reason to give any of that to the buyer.

It would go something like this:

Seller and agent list house for $100,000. Agent gets 7% ($7000) if it
sells. Buyer pays $100,000 and seller gets $93,000.

Buyer off the street comes in and says to seller "I will buy for
$95,000 straight up and screw the agent." Buyer pays $95,000 ($5000
less) and seller gets $95,000.($2000 more).


If the buyer does not have a "buyer's agent" the "selling agent" is
only entitled to 3.5% (7%/2) since half of the commission is for the
buyer's agent.

And, this thing that it is the seller who pays the commision is
arguable. If I want $100k for my house and decide to use an agent to
sell it, of course I will include the agents fee in the price, which
will go to $107.5k. Mostly after my previous experiences buying and
selling houses where did not see the agents value in the fee they got.

On May 4, 3:19 pm, Rookie_Remodeler wrote:
On May 1, 10:07 am, "john"
wrote:

Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

I remember that when I bought my first house even though there was a
realtor involved it was me and the seller who did almost everything.
Because I did not have a "buyer's agent" the freaking Remax realtor
wanted to take the inexistent realtor's share as well and got ****ed
when I said NO, that I would do my part of the deal. She tried to
sabotage the deal by delaying the offer negotiations between me and
the seller, who agreed in discounting the "buyer's agent" fee from the
price.

So, if I understand this correctly, the real estate agent did get the
full commission, (6%?), even though no other broker was involved. And
the money for the commission, as usual, came out of the sellers
pocket. Which, unless I missed something, from the final price
standpoint to you as buyer is the same as you just walking in and
saying, "Here's my offer of $XXX, because that's what I'm willing to
pay and think the house is worth." But the second approach doesn't
get you involved in a nasty little dispute over who is entitled to
what, which apparently didn't work.

After you went into this by trying to interfere in the contract
between the realtor and the seller, and reduce the agents commission,
why were you surprised that the real estate agent was less interested
in dealing with you?



So, since I had gone to the house directly and the seller
introduced me to the agent later (as good ethics dictate)

It's not a question of ethics. The seller is legally obligated via a
listing contract to pay the real estate agent a commission. So, it
wouldn't make any sense to not have you go through the broker and use
some of the services the seller is paying for.


the agent
showed to have none and the deal might not have gone through if I had
not talked with the seller directly.

A guy I know also had similar problem. But his was that the realtor
wanted the house for a friend of hers and was delaying to show his
offer to the seller. She only showed the offer (which was accepted
by the seller) after he spoke with the seller directly and threatened
her with a lawsuit.

So, in cases like the above I do not see any problem in talking
directly to the homeowner. If it is just to "have a price cut",
absolutely not.

I'll bet if you hadn't tried to cut the agent's commission upfront,
you wouldn;t have had all these problems.

In article . com,
says...
On May 4, 6:01 am, WDS wrote:
On May 3, 9:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:

In article . com,

Dycha wrote:
It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

Why would the buyer save some $$$? It's the seller who would save $$$,
and he has no reason to give any of that to the buyer.

It would go something like this:

Seller and agent list house for $100,000. Agent gets 7% ($7000) if it
sells. Buyer pays $100,000 and seller gets $93,000.

Buyer off the street comes in and says to seller "I will buy for
$95,000 straight up and screw the agent." Buyer pays $95,000 ($5000
less) and seller gets $95,000.($2000 more).


If the buyer does not have a "buyer's agent" the "selling agent" is
only entitled to 3.5% (7%/2) since half of the commission is for the
buyer's agent.

I would assume that this depends on the contract. The commission is
owed to the selling agent. AFAIK, the selling agent pays the buyer's
agent according to separate contract. If there is no buying agent
the selling agent *may* get the whole thing.

And, this thing that it is the seller who pays the commision is
arguable. If I want $100k for my house and decide to use an agent to
sell it, of course I will include the agents fee in the price, which
will go to $107.5k. Mostly after my previous experiences buying and
selling houses where did not see the agents value in the fee they got.

Everything is negotiable but it may be hard to get an agent to move
from the local customs. If one could get $108K for a $100K house,
why wouldn't a FISBO ask it? The market determines the value of the
house. The buyer doesn't care where the money is going, just how
much is going.

--
Keith

On May 12, 8:47 pm, krw wrote:
In article . com,
says...





On May 4, 6:01 am, WDS wrote:
On May 3, 9:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:

In article . com,

Dycha wrote:
It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

Why would the buyer save some $$$? It's the seller who would save $$$,
and he has no reason to give any of that to the buyer.

It would go something like this:

Seller and agent list house for $100,000. Agent gets 7% ($7000) if it
sells. Buyer pays $100,000 and seller gets $93,000.

Buyer off the street comes in and says to seller "I will buy for
$95,000 straight up and screw the agent." Buyer pays $95,000 ($5000
less) and seller gets $95,000.($2000 more).

If the buyer does not have a "buyer's agent" the "selling agent" is
only entitled to 3.5% (7%/2) since half of the commission is for the
buyer's agent.

I would assume that this depends on the contract. The commission is
owed to the selling agent. AFAIK, the selling agent pays the buyer's
agent according to separate contract. If there is no buying agent
the selling agent *may* get the whole thing.

Exactly. In most listing contracts the listing agent gets the full
commission, regardless of whether any other agent is involved. The
idea that because you don't have an agent on the buy side involved
means the seller is only paying half the commission is bogus. The
listing agents position is that they then have to do the hand holding
of the buyer during the transaction that would normally be done by
another agent. There is certainly some truth to that, though I agree
it doesn't justify the full commission. But unless the contract says
otherwise, they get the full commission.

Now the way a smart buyer without an agent can approach a sale with
only a listing agent is as follows. Start out and/or end with a
final bid that is about 2% lower than you would have with another
agent involved. In that case, it's not unusual for a listing agent
to agree to cut their commission around 2% to close the deall.
Everyone winds up a winner. The realtor looks like a hero because
they cut their commission from 6 to 4% to get the deal done, the buyer
is happy. And for the realtor, they got a sure 4% commission,
rather than do a lot more, maybe months of work, and take the chance
the lisiting could expire and they get zippo. For the buyer, you got
the house at a good price.

On the other hand, if you go into this with the idea I'm gonna address
the fact that no other agent is involved up front, find out what
commission the agent is getting in a contract you're not party to, and
try to reduce it, your sure to **** everyone off and look like a
lowball buyer who neither the agent nor many sellers are going to want
to do business with, unless they are desperate.





And, this thing that it is the seller who pays the commision is
arguable. If I want $100k for my house and decide to use an agent to
sell it, of course I will include the agents fee in the price, which
will go to $107.5k. Mostly after my previous experiences buying and
selling houses where did not see the agents value in the fee they got.

Everything is negotiable but it may be hard to get an agent to move
from the local customs. If one could get $108K for a $100K house,
why wouldn't a FISBO ask it? The market determines the value of the
house. The buyer doesn't care where the money is going, just how
much is going.

--
Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 5, 5:56 am, wrote:
On May 4, 3:19 pm, Rookie_Remodeler wrote:

On May 1, 10:07 am, "john"
wrote:

Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

I remember that when I bought my first house even though there was a
realtor involved it was me and the seller who did almost everything.
Because I did not have a "buyer's agent" the freaking Remax realtor
wanted to take the inexistent realtor's share as well and got ****ed
when I said NO, that I would do my part of the deal. She tried to
sabotage the deal by delaying the offer negotiations between me and
the seller, who agreed in discounting the "buyer's agent" fee from the
price.

So, if I understand this correctly, the real estate agent did get the
full commission, (6%?), even though no other broker was involved. And
the money for the commission, as usual, came out of the sellers
pocket. Which, unless I missed something, from the final price
standpoint to you as buyer is the same as you just walking in and
saying, "Here's my offer of $XXX, because that's what I'm willing to
pay and think the house is worth." But the second approach doesn't
get you involved in a nasty little dispute over who is entitled to
what, which apparently didn't work.

After you went into this by trying to interfere in the contract
between the realtor and the seller, and reduce the agents commission,
why were you surprised that the real estate agent was less interested
in dealing with you?

So, since I had gone to the house directly and the seller

introduced me to the agent later (as good ethics dictate)

It's not a question of ethics. The seller is legally obligated via a
listing contract to pay the real estate agent a commission. So, it
wouldn't make any sense to not have you go through the broker and use
some of the services the seller is paying for.

the agent

showed to have none and the deal might not have gone through if I had
not talked with the seller directly.

A guy I know also had similar problem. But his was that the realtor
wanted the house for a friend of hers and was delaying to show his
offer to the seller. She only showed the offer (which was accepted
by the seller) after he spoke with the seller directly and threatened
her with a lawsuit.

So, in cases like the above I do not see any problem in talking
directly to the homeowner. If it is just to "have a price cut",
absolutely not.

I'll bet if you hadn't tried to cut the agent's commission upfront,
you wouldn;t have had all these problems.


Apparently the agent had to represent me to get the whole
commission. I do not know what the seler and agent negotiated or
signed. I just know that my wife and I were driving by the
neighborhood, saw the house and the owners were working in the yard.
We stopped by and talked with them. They showed us the house and
gave us their agent's card. We called their agent and one of the
first things she asked was if we had an agent. We said no and she
immediatelly started swying she was going to "take care of us". (The
sentence "I will take care of you" usually gives me a very bad
feeling.) Anyways... I said there was no need of that and we would
"take care of ourselves" and wanted to make an offer. We met her and
presented the offer, which was lower than the asked price because
there were somethings to do aruond the house. She clearly did not
like it. After a couple days without hearing from her I called the
seller, who had not received the offer yet. He called her and asked
for it. She gave some lame excuses and then presented it. Of
course, he was mad and probably decided to cut her commission to the
half part for the seller's agent. The whole price negotiation was
done directly between seller and I. Agent only showed-up to get he
share when we closed. By the way, I once even received a phone call
from an "attorney" saying that his Remax Branch Office was
complaining about me "going around the agent". After I explained
what happed and telling him to talk with the seller I also mentiong I
was thinking about talking to my attorney about the Remax agent.
Never got any call back.

On May 14, 9:54 am, Rookie_Remodeler wrote:
On May 5, 5:56 am, wrote:





On May 4, 3:19 pm, Rookie_Remodeler wrote:

On May 1, 10:07 am, "john"
wrote:

Is there a specific , legal way to try to contact the seller of a house
directly and bypassing the realtor? can i just look his number up in the
phone book and call him? is that ok to do?

I remember that when I bought my first house even though there was a
realtor involved it was me and the seller who did almost everything.
Because I did not have a "buyer's agent" the freaking Remax realtor
wanted to take the inexistent realtor's share as well and got ****ed
when I said NO, that I would do my part of the deal. She tried to
sabotage the deal by delaying the offer negotiations between me and
the seller, who agreed in discounting the "buyer's agent" fee from the
price.

So, if I understand this correctly, the real estate agent did get the
full commission, (6%?), even though no other broker was involved. And
the money for the commission, as usual, came out of the sellers
pocket. Which, unless I missed something, from the final price
standpoint to you as buyer is the same as you just walking in and
saying, "Here's my offer of $XXX, because that's what I'm willing to
pay and think the house is worth." But the second approach doesn't
get you involved in a nasty little dispute over who is entitled to
what, which apparently didn't work.

After you went into this by trying to interfere in the contract
between the realtor and the seller, and reduce the agents commission,
why were you surprised that the real estate agent was less interested
in dealing with you?

So, since I had gone to the house directly and the seller

introduced me to the agent later (as good ethics dictate)

It's not a question of ethics. The seller is legally obligated via a
listing contract to pay the real estate agent a commission. So, it
wouldn't make any sense to not have you go through the broker and use
some of the services the seller is paying for.

the agent

showed to have none and the deal might not have gone through if I had
not talked with the seller directly.

A guy I know also had similar problem. But his was that the realtor
wanted the house for a friend of hers and was delaying to show his
offer to the seller. She only showed the offer (which was accepted
by the seller) after he spoke with the seller directly and threatened
her with a lawsuit.

So, in cases like the above I do not see any problem in talking
directly to the homeowner. If it is just to "have a price cut",
absolutely not.

I'll bet if you hadn't tried to cut the agent's commission upfront,
you wouldn;t have had all these problems.

Apparently the agent had to represent me to get the whole
commission. I do not know what the seler and agent negotiated or
signed.

I guess at this point, I'm confused. Are you sure how much
commission was paid by the seller? What was it?



I just know that my wife and I were driving by the
neighborhood, saw the house and the owners were working in the yard.
We stopped by and talked with them. They showed us the house and
gave us their agent's card. We called their agent and one of the
first things she asked was if we had an agent. We said no and she
immediatelly started swying she was going to "take care of us". (The
sentence "I will take care of you" usually gives me a very bad
feeling.) Anyways... I said there was no need of that and we would
"take care of ourselves" and wanted to make an offer. We met her and
presented the offer, which was lower than the asked price because
there were somethings to do aruond the house. She clearly did not
like it. After a couple days without hearing from her I called the
seller, who had not received the offer yet. He called her and asked
for it. She gave some lame excuses and then presented it. Of
course, he was mad and probably decided to cut her commission to the
half part for the seller's agent.

What the broker did was unethical because they are obligated to
present all offers. And if they didn't do that for a couple days, as
the seller, I'd be ****ed. However, it should have nothing to do
with who gets what commission, which is clearly specified and agreed
to in the listing agreement.




The whole price negotiation was
done directly between seller and I. Agent only showed-up to get he
share when we closed. By the way, I once even received a phone call
from an "attorney" saying that his Remax Branch Office was
complaining about me "going around the agent". After I explained
what happed and telling him to talk with the seller I also mentiong I
was thinking about talking to my attorney about the Remax agent.
Never got any call back.- Hide quoted text -


I agree that to have the agency lawyer call you is pretty dumb. The
commission is owed regardless of whether you went through the broker
or not. If they have any fear about not getting a commission, they
should be taking that up with the seller.

On May 14, 10:03 am, wrote:

I'll bet if you hadn't tried to cut the agent's commission upfront,
you wouldn;t have had all these problems.

Apparently the agent had to represent me to get the whole
commission. I do not know what the seler and agent negotiated or
signed.

I guess at this point, I'm confused. Are you sure how much
commission was paid by the seller? What was it?

For what the seller told us the whole commission was 6% (which I think
it pretty high considering house price, etc., mostly after I saw how
she "operated") and he said he would give only 3% (50%) as part of the
price reduction. I told him that this was between him and the agent.
I just said I did not have an agent so there would be no shared
commission.


I just know that my wife and I were driving by the
neighborhood, saw the house and the owners were working in the yard.
We stopped by and talked with them. They showed us the house and
gave us their agent's card. We called their agent and one of the
first things she asked was if we had an agent. We said no and she
immediatelly started swying she was going to "take care of us". (The
sentence "I will take care of you" usually gives me a very bad
feeling.) Anyways... I said there was no need of that and we would
"take care of ourselves" and wanted to make an offer. We met her and
presented the offer, which was lower than the asked price because
there were somethings to do aruond the house. She clearly did not
like it. After a couple days without hearing from her I called the
seller, who had not received the offer yet. He called her and asked
for it. She gave some lame excuses and then presented it. Of
course, he was mad and probably decided to cut her commission to the
half part for the seller's agent.

What the broker did was unethical because they are obligated to
present all offers. And if they didn't do that for a couple days, as
the seller, I'd be ****ed. However, it should have nothing to do
with who gets what commission, which is clearly specified and agreed
to in the listing agreement.


I wonder what really happens in cases where the buyer does not have a
chance to talk with the seller. In my friend's case it was the
same. Apparently the agent was stalling his offer trying to get the
seller to accept another one, probably from one of his
"aquaintance". My friend called the seller directly asking if there
was a decision and the guy had never seen his offer, whihc happened to
be a bit higher than the other one on the table. He had his lawyer
call the agent to clarify what was going on. Later on that agend
called, clearly upset, saying his offer was accepted.

The bottom line is that I believe in ethics and that if the seller has
an agent we should go through that agent. However, to the topic of
this thread, have an open channel with the seller because it seems
very clear that there are some unethical manipulation behind the
scenes. And if I am a seller I would also want to talk with the
buyers directly. Of course, not all agents are as bad as the ones in
the cases above, however, we never know who is the "rotten apple"
unless the agent comes with very good recommendations from people we
know.



The whole price negotiation was
done directly between seller and I. Agent only showed-up to get he
share when we closed. By the way, I once even received a phone call
from an "attorney" saying that his Remax Branch Office was
complaining about me "going around the agent". After I explained
what happed and telling him to talk with the seller I also mentiong I
was thinking about talking to my attorney about the Remax agent.
Never got any call back.- Hide quoted text -

I agree that to have the agency lawyer call you is pretty dumb. The
commission is owed regardless of whether you went through the broker
or not. If they have any fear about not getting a commission, they
should be taking that up with the seller.


Agree. If I was in bad mood that day or had lost the house my lawyer
would definitely have had a conversation with those folks that would
not end with the "please accpet our apologies for any inconvenience".