So this just happened.

[Damap]

There is no definite answer. You would have to pursue the agent and set a precedent. But in plain English the code of conduct says that they would be in breach.

[speights boy]

But in plain English the code of conduct says that they would be in breach.

Dunno.
The code also says the agent follows vendors instruction if not illegal to do so.

So the vendor says "yes, present all offers except those below $X."

Does that "instruction" mean the agent is not bound by "all offers"

Need an actual agent to chime in here.

[Damap]

Who cares? It doesn't matter really does it?

[Davo36]

The flip side to a vendor accepting a low offer is - if it's a trader who buys the property - it's usually renovated to a much better standard so the next owner of the property gets to enjoy it.

There are worse examples of bad stuff in life than vendors of vacant properties accepting low offers.

cheers,

donna

Really Donna? What if it was your mother, who in ailing health sold the family home for half it's value? And then tarted up and put back on the market for double the price?

you'd be happy for your mum to own it for let's say, 40 years and then some dude with a medallion to come along and rip her off then flick it on in a few months?

[speights boy]

Who cares? It doesn't matter really does it?

You cared enough before when you said they must present all offers.
I'm simply seeking clarification from an actual agent regarding my query.
That why I said

Need an actual agent to chime in here.

If you are no longer interested, feel free not to comment.

[Damap]

The questions been answered, you are just splitting hairs now. No legal precedent set yet because it isn't important.

[donna]

Really Donna? What if it was your mother, who in ailing health sold the family home for half it's value? And then tarted up and put back on the market for double the price?

you'd be happy for your mum to own it for let's say, 40 years and then some dude with a medallion to come along and rip her off then flick it on in a few months?

There are many "what if's" in life - and most of them we can't control.

I control what I can and so when my mother was alive and was in ailing health I looked after her!

But as rightfully pointed out by SB - this is a little off topic.

cheers,

donna

[Davo36]

But as rightfully pointed out by SB - this is a little off topic.

No, its' not at all.

The point is that real estate agents are paid and required (by fiduciary duty) to look after their vendors.

Not flick stuff off to professional traders.

Pretty clear to me.

[Leftette]

I agree entirely, Davo. Something I experienced recently was a workaround to this 'problem' by the agents. The acting agent in a sale supposedly did his/her best, but the low-ball offer (accepted by the vendor much to my gnashing of teeth) came via another agent (same firm, different branch). May have been above board, but the cynic in me wonders if this would be a nice way to get around the issue of the acting agent being seen to be be acting in the vendor's best interest.

[Damap]

I think it's a Utopian fantasy that agents work in the best interests of the vendor. Theoretically true but in reality they just want to get paid. They are no more required to look after the vendor than any business is meant to look after their clients. It is good for business but only 10% of businesses do it. Same in RE

[Davo36]

Fantasy to expect the person you're paying to serve your interests? Well it shouldn't be.

And I think most agents try to do well by their vendors. But there are certainly some out there who are pretty mercenary alright.

[speights boy]

My post from page one.

If my dear ol' Aunt Mavis ever wanted to sell her penthouse apartment, this is exactly the type of agent she would want to hire.

[DrewHj]

Never agree with the agents. That 69K is their commission that's why they are pissed. Never agree with the agents.