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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

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, 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

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, 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.

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".