A Buyer’s Agent has a fiduciary duty to their client to act in the client’s best interest. This is in stark juxtaposition to the traditional real estate agent who is a seller’s agent, with the duty to the SELLER.
The article indicated that the buyer’s agent being sued here did NOT advise the buyer of lower comps in the area. Based on the facts in the article, there appears to be a breach of the duty owed the buyer by the agent. If the buyer can show damages in court caused by this breach, she should recover damages.
Another interesting statistic in the article is that buyer’s agents may be involved in as many as 2/3 of all home sales today. Fascinating. I had no idea that was so high.
Remember: traditional RE agents are the agents of the SELLER. They are NOT looking out for your interests if you are a buyer. By law, their duty is to the SELLER.
A Buyer’s agent, by law, has their duty to the BUYER. If they pull their usual shenanigans (notice how this agent blamed the buyers for not doing “due diligence”) they will increasingly find themselves hauled into court to answer.
