🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>>wtf?  I don't exactly agree with their "refund" moniker, but they're not
>>running a scam.  They're just a very low service realtor.  For a seller, that
>>means only paying commission to the buyer's agent.  For a buyer, that means
>>they rebate (or "refund" in their ads) part of the buyer's agent share to
>>the buyer.
>
> I've got to point out that the agent isn't the buyer's agent unless the
> buyer and agent have a contract. The agent the buyer is working with
> has a fiduciary duty to the seller as a sub-agent of the seller's agent
> if that contract does not exist. That means, if the buyer discloses a
> material fact (such as how much pressure he's under to move) to the
> agent, that fact is supposed to be reported to the seller. It's a
> bad deal for the buyer not to have representation in the negotiation.

that is completely and totally false.  Illinois law has what's called
"implied agency", meaning that if as a buyer, an agent shows you a property
and they are not the sellers agent (dual agency would come into play there),
they are automatically working for you and have a duty to you, not this
sub-agent bullshit.  no written contract is required.  Go read 225 ILCS
454/15, it spells all of it out.

> If buyer and agent have a contract, the buyer's agent still gets paid out
> of the proceeds of the sale.

duh.  and this is where the "refund" from redfin comes from.

> The dual agency concept is bullshit. You can't work for both parties
> in a negotiation.

completely agree.