4 ms·

How that is legal, ethically, I'll never understand.

mgirdley 11y ago
It's totally ethical. The contract is very clear when it says, "Buyer and/or assigns." In most states, that is written at the very beginning of the contract as well.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I feel like there is a lot of opportunity for the agent to act like they are working for the seller while not informing them fully of their knowledge of the market. If they are acting like an adviser, there's something at least a bit smarmy about not actually advising. If they were simply interested buyers, its harder to impute an obligation to the seller.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  The real estate agents are clearly violating their fiduciary duty to all non-agent parties involved in the transaction by misrepresenting the market value of the property. The average property owner doesn't understand the market and is expecting the real estate agent to provide accurate price estimations. I don't understand, ethically, how this sort of thing could be legal as its clearly a clause meant to allow misrepresentation to take rubes for their money.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  You're mistaking legality with ethics. The assignment clause makes it legal, but that doesn't mean that the brokers are acting ethically. Ethics revolves around ensuring that everybody's interests are protected. A broker is supposed to be a neutral party that does not have an interest in the transaction. The seller's interests are not being represented.
grok2 11y ago
It seems like a grey area. In a market where buyers intentionally overpay above market prices to get the house of their choice and if everyone involved is aware and understands what they are getting into and more critically has options to negotiate a deal that is best for them, perhaps it makes some sort of free-market sense.
- jonas21 11y ago
  > buyers intentionally overpay above market prices to get the house of their choice If buyers are willing to pay a certain amount for a house of their choice, isn't that the definition of market price?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

It's totally ethical. The contract is very clear when it says, "Buyer and/or assigns." In most states, that is written at the very beginning of the contract as well.

maxerickson 11y ago
I feel like there is a lot of opportunity for the agent to act like they are working for the seller while not informing them fully of their knowledge of the market. If they are acting like an adviser, there's something at least a bit smarmy about not actually advising. If they were simply interested buyers, its harder to impute an obligation to the seller.
fweespeech 11y ago
The real estate agents are clearly violating their fiduciary duty to all non-agent parties involved in the transaction by misrepresenting the market value of the property. The average property owner doesn't understand the market and is expecting the real estate agent to provide accurate price estimations. I don't understand, ethically, how this sort of thing could be legal as its clearly a clause meant to allow misrepresentation to take rubes for their money.
vinceguidry 11y ago
You're mistaking legality with ethics. The assignment clause makes it legal, but that doesn't mean that the brokers are acting ethically. Ethics revolves around ensuring that everybody's interests are protected. A broker is supposed to be a neutral party that does not have an interest in the transaction. The seller's interests are not being represented.

grok2 11y ago

It seems like a grey area. In a market where buyers intentionally overpay above market prices to get the house of their choice and if everyone involved is aware and understands what they are getting into and more critically has options to negotiate a deal that is best for them, perhaps it makes some sort of free-market sense.

jonas21 11y ago
> buyers intentionally overpay above market prices to get the house of their choice If buyers are willing to pay a certain amount for a house of their choice, isn't that the definition of market price?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]