[quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.
In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.
It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.
I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.
No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.
Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]
“Honest about being dishonest”? You’ve got your terms mixed up here. I’m being honest about my willingness to engage in a legal transaction that may or may not be ethical (using your definition of “ethical”). I think what you meant to say was that I was being honest about being willing to be unethical (again, using your definition). Like beauty, ethics is in the eye of the beholder. It’s very easy to say that you would likely not do the deal… because you’re not faced with the option.
But you’re right on this count: I would dive into the deal thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Why? Because I define right and wrong (ethical and unethical) for myself. I don’t allow others to do it for me. Now, you (and others) might find that reprehensible. But that’s the way it is. And I don’t apologize for it.
Is the deal ethical or not? For the buyer, maybe, maybe not. For the agent, probably not. The agent should probably put it out to auction. But there are probably also instances in which prices are changing so rapidly that waiting a couple of weeks for auction results actually hurts the lender-owner, or perhaps there’s a problem with the problem that the early buyer didn’t identify (that would be discovered with more time), thereby overpaying. But, in general, the agent should probably handle the process “properly.” That’s what I would want if I were the seller.
But, again… I have a hard time seeing a big problem if the seller agrees to a price (whether it’s “good” or “bad”) and a buyer is willing to pay it. Despite what might be going on behind the scenes. Ultimately, after all, the seller has to sign off on the deal. Who’s fault is it if they accept a sub-optimal offer? I can see fault on both sides.
