You're missing the point. They have a contract with the seller, _by_
_definition_. They are *obligated* to the seller before anyone else. If they
want to dance the line and do both, if even allowed, someone is going to lose
and it may just be the agent. In most cases (in most states) even the buyer's
agent is working for the seller, because he's the one paying the tab. Some
states have tried the concept of the "Buyer's Agent", but that works to
Sure, there are cases where the listing _agency_ will do both ends of the
deal, but generally not the same agent. I don't think I'd be happy on the
buyer's end of that, at all.
Unless, of course, they're dual agents in which they can wear both hats
From the realtors' website...
"When entering into listing contracts, REALTORS® ...
3. any potential for listing brokers to act as disclosed dual
agents, e.g. buyer/tenant agents. ..."
When the REALTORS' organization recognizes the existence of dual agents,
it's fairly near to what I'd call conclusive such things exist...
Yes, I see and agree to your point. But the potential for the above
to occur exists with virtually every listing contract, no? Let's say
I hire a real estate agent to sell my house. During an open house,
they find a buyer that doesn't have a real estate agent. That agency
typically winds up handling both sides of the deal. In NJ here it
happens the vast majority of the time in that situation. Are you
saying that some states or listing agreements prohibit them from also
representing the buyer? I'd think not many realtors would be
interested in listing a house with those restrictions, because it
effectively cuts their max commission in half. The buyer would then
go find another agent to represent them, splitting the commission in
Yet again I reiterate -- what is allowed depends on State law and what
is _legally_required_ to be disclosed is also locally regulated. The
above statement comes from the Realtor(R) Code of Ethics which say
"should be disclosed" but how clearly that is done ime is from
to simply "it's in the contract very fine print; find it". That the
particular section wasn't even adopted by the realtors until sometime in
the '90s is indicative of how dear they hold the idea of "all
commissions possible are mine".
I brought it up for OP's attention to point out that he can't
_NECESSARILY_ be assured that the advice he or his friend are getting is
totally unbiased w/o knowing the ground rules under which that advice is
being given. And, of course, even if the agent is serving solely as
seller's agent, there's still incentive to close the deal in a hurry
which means may suggest doing things like this that may indeed expedite
a sale but may not really be necessary.
This real or potential conflict of interest is why everyone should have
representation on their own payroll who are fiduciarily bound to provide
information solely in the best interest of their client. (imo, $0.02,
Sorry for the empty posting... :(
I didn't see the question buried in the hypothetical situation that is
the norm in locales that do allow dual agents. I wasn't/aren't much
interested in arguing/discussing what is or isn't common practice; only
the point previously raised to OP of "at least be aware of who is
bearing advice and what may be their underlying motives...".
But to answer the question, the answer is "yes" there are states in
which dual agency is not permitted (although they are relatively few,
there are some). In one of those states, yes, the prospective
unattached prospective buyer either has to handle the process on their
own (where that is allowed but probably not the wisest choice for most
even if is) or get another realtor to be their buyer's agent. The
states I know of otomh are KS, MD and (I think AL). VA was discussing
the issue; they were allowed; don't know if it changed or not. Who else
might be on the list I've no clue; I've not researched areas I've either
not resided in or had other reason to know about.
In states which don't allow it, it doesn't matter what the realtors wish
were the law; the law is the law and since all are under the same
jurisdiction it's not a competitive issue.
There are many arguments on both sides; the convenience one as your
example is probably the one that wins in the argument (other than that
realtors are one of the best-heeled lobbying organizations in virtually
all State legislatures, of course).
Of course at the end of the day, there is another problem. And that
is that real estate agents, regardless of who they represent, are
almost always paid on a SALE COMMISSION, not by the hour. So, even
if you have an agreement and realtor who is supposed to be working
only for you, they usually have a high incentive to just get the deal
done. A classic example would be whether they really have any
incentive to get you the highest price as seller. Face with getting
a sure commission of 6% on deal at 300,000 or trying to get the
$320,000 it might really be worth, it's obvious from an immdeiate
financial perspective which is more advantageous. It's better for
them to just get the deal done at the lower price and move on to the
The new tanks that were required for gas stations were double wall with
leak monitoring in the space between.
At some size (1000 gal?), surface tanks are required to have secondary
containment, which could be a concrete floor and walls high enough to
contain the tank contents.
Residential is exempt from the federal requirements unless they have
changed. States could regulate residential.
The oil supplier may be another source of information on what the
I agree that the seller's agent is paid by the seller and is working for
the seller. Here the buyer's agent is generally paid by the seller and
is working for the seller. The buyer may have their agent working for
them, in which case the buyer probably pays their agent.
The sellers agent should know what the options are. _That is their job._
Might be wise to find out what the RI regs are and what the insurance
companies require. Could ask the sellers insurance company (but may be
better to ask anonymously).
All we have is the prospective buyers "were told".
Nonsense. If you list your home with an agent, I'd like to see one
example of a listing agreement where the broker is not then legally
bound to represent your interests as seller and be on your side of the
As far as insurance goes it is difficult to get Homeowners insurance
or unusually expensive. The insurance company just wont cover damaged
caused by it.
In the last few years there have been a lot of houses flipped that had
them. Pretty much universally they got dug up mostly to be replaced
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.