A simple argument against dual agency.
In speaking to a respected listing agent last week while negotiating an offer, she assured me that I wouldn’t have to worry about her selling the listing herself via Dual Agency. (the thought had never entered my mind, as I know her and trust her, but I don’t trust Dual Agency).
From the Realtor Code of Ethics:
When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORSÂ® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORSÂ® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly. When serving a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant or other party in a non-agency capacity, REALTORSÂ® remain obligated to treat all parties honestly.
âƒ She said that she decided many years ago not to represent both parties in a transaction after one experience:
She was representing the Seller and had written the offer for a non-client purchaser. While at the home inspection, she wondered, “What would I (should I) do if I see something that the home inspector misses?” A listing agent’s fiduciary duty is to her client, but the Code of Ethics states that she must be honest to all parties. Would not pointing out a defect be dishonest? That question alone should be sufficient argument against Dual Agency.
While the above is not a clear example of Dual Agency, the analogy applies especially to a Dual Agency situation whereby an agent has pledged his allegiance to his client – how can one serve two masters?
The inherent conflict of interest disqualifies all arguments for dual agency. As I said last yearÂ – Who benefits from Dual Agency? The Realtor.
I respected her before she told me that and I respect her even more now.
Technorati Tags: dual agency