And some wonder why I don’t practice Single-Agent Dual Agency … it’s right there in the Virginia Buyer Brokerage Agreement …
Because of the Broker’s dual representation in such a transaction, Buyer understands that Buyer and the seller have the responsibility of making their own decisions as to what terms are to be included in any purchase agreement. Buyer should be aware of the implications of Broker’s dual representation, including the limitation on Broker’s ability to represent the seller or Buyer fully and exclusively. Buyer understands that Buyer may seek independent legal counsel in order to assist with any matter relating to a purchase agreement or to the transaction that is the subject matter of a purchase agreement. Provided Broker has acted in accordance with its obligations under this Agreement, Broker shall not be liable for any claims, damages, losses, expenses or liabilities arising from Broker’s role as dual representative. Buyer shall have a duty to protect its own interests and should read any purchase agreement carefully to insure that it accurately sets forth terms Buyer wants included in the purchase agreement.
… Because the Buyer doesn’t have full representation in a single-agent dual agency situation. (bolding mine) Of course, the above is just one of many clauses examining limitations of Dual Agency.
Hat tip to Jay’s comment on Rob’s post about Dual Agency for the idea to post this clause.
I’ve written before about why I think single-agent dual agency is bad. A few times.
Sample Buyer-Broker Agreement, courtesy of Jim Duncan with Nest Realty Group
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I think it is very unfortunate that the Va. Buyer Broker’s Agreement still uses the word “representation” when describing the agent’s role in a disclosed dual agency situation. Even current state law seems to shy away from such language and prefers to employ the word “engage” more often. Hopefully this is because representation presumes some type of advocacy or duty by an agent on behalf of a client. That is not possible when you attempt to “serve two masters”. I believe we should at least remove the word “representation” in our forms and language when it is used in a dual agency context as such inclusion may only serve to continue to confuse clients as well as agents who fail to pay attention to such thngs. Perhaps the word “clients” should no longer be used as well. These changes might in effect lead to a transactional brokerage category in Va. real estate law.
Joe – I absolutely agree. It’s a sham and a shame that the establishment continues to allow for this.
Of course, the buyer-broker agreement also misspells suit as “suite” …
Hey Jim, I asked someone on our staff to contact you about that typo. Did they?
Yep. He did. VAR rocks.