Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law
- This topic has 265 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
bearishgurl.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM #661278January 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM #660147
PCinSD
GuestBG, I read your posts. You claimed this was a case of dual agency. I asked you to show me how you came to that conclusion. You could not, but said you “inferred” it. I showed you how you were wrong.
The reason why it’s important is because this case would have involved an entirely different area of law if what you claimed was true. If this was a case involving dual agency, it would have settled before getting to trial and we would have never heard about it. The entire case and the applicable law is based on the fact that the sellers agent did not represent the buyers.
I’m not sure what answers you’re looking for. The fact that you could not read and comprehend the appellate opinion does not make me narcissistic.
“The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.
January 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM #660210GuestBG, I read your posts. You claimed this was a case of dual agency. I asked you to show me how you came to that conclusion. You could not, but said you “inferred” it. I showed you how you were wrong.
The reason why it’s important is because this case would have involved an entirely different area of law if what you claimed was true. If this was a case involving dual agency, it would have settled before getting to trial and we would have never heard about it. The entire case and the applicable law is based on the fact that the sellers agent did not represent the buyers.
I’m not sure what answers you’re looking for. The fact that you could not read and comprehend the appellate opinion does not make me narcissistic.
“The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.
January 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM #660814GuestBG, I read your posts. You claimed this was a case of dual agency. I asked you to show me how you came to that conclusion. You could not, but said you “inferred” it. I showed you how you were wrong.
The reason why it’s important is because this case would have involved an entirely different area of law if what you claimed was true. If this was a case involving dual agency, it would have settled before getting to trial and we would have never heard about it. The entire case and the applicable law is based on the fact that the sellers agent did not represent the buyers.
I’m not sure what answers you’re looking for. The fact that you could not read and comprehend the appellate opinion does not make me narcissistic.
“The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.
January 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM #660952GuestBG, I read your posts. You claimed this was a case of dual agency. I asked you to show me how you came to that conclusion. You could not, but said you “inferred” it. I showed you how you were wrong.
The reason why it’s important is because this case would have involved an entirely different area of law if what you claimed was true. If this was a case involving dual agency, it would have settled before getting to trial and we would have never heard about it. The entire case and the applicable law is based on the fact that the sellers agent did not represent the buyers.
I’m not sure what answers you’re looking for. The fact that you could not read and comprehend the appellate opinion does not make me narcissistic.
“The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.
January 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM #661283GuestBG, I read your posts. You claimed this was a case of dual agency. I asked you to show me how you came to that conclusion. You could not, but said you “inferred” it. I showed you how you were wrong.
The reason why it’s important is because this case would have involved an entirely different area of law if what you claimed was true. If this was a case involving dual agency, it would have settled before getting to trial and we would have never heard about it. The entire case and the applicable law is based on the fact that the sellers agent did not represent the buyers.
I’m not sure what answers you’re looking for. The fact that you could not read and comprehend the appellate opinion does not make me narcissistic.
“The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.
January 31, 2011 at 11:53 AM #660152bearishgurl
Participant[quote=pabloesqobar]”The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.[/quote]
I read and comprehend everything just fine, pablo. On October 29, 2010, near the beginning of this thread and even before reading the entire opinion or any of the cases that were cited, I stated:
[quote=bearishgurl]…I am presently going over the opinion with a fine-toothed comb. The seller’s agent here was apparently acting in a dual-agency capacity (why do buyers do this???). Since buyers had no agent, the listing agent actually brought the buyers’ offer to the sellers. Buyers sold their own residence based upon the representation by sellers that they would sell them their property at the agreed-upon price…[/quote]
An agent acting in a “dual-agent capacity” and a “dual agent” are often NOT one and the same. Summer was NOT a “dual agent” because she never signed an Agency Confirmation with buyer Holmes. Thus she had no fiduciary duty to them to act in and serve their best interests.
It’s just a case of semantics, here, but an important one, at that, in the eyes of the court. As UR, would say, Summer was “banging both sides,” lol, and that is an apt description in this case. The unsuspecting Holmeses probably never realized that she was NOT “representing them,” even though she wrote their offer and got it “accepted.”
Yes, this case DID turn out the way it should have.
Again, lesson learned here, potential-buyer Piggs.
January 31, 2011 at 11:53 AM #660215Participant[quote=pabloesqobar]”The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.[/quote]
I read and comprehend everything just fine, pablo. On October 29, 2010, near the beginning of this thread and even before reading the entire opinion or any of the cases that were cited, I stated:
[quote=bearishgurl]…I am presently going over the opinion with a fine-toothed comb. The seller’s agent here was apparently acting in a dual-agency capacity (why do buyers do this???). Since buyers had no agent, the listing agent actually brought the buyers’ offer to the sellers. Buyers sold their own residence based upon the representation by sellers that they would sell them their property at the agreed-upon price…[/quote]
An agent acting in a “dual-agent capacity” and a “dual agent” are often NOT one and the same. Summer was NOT a “dual agent” because she never signed an Agency Confirmation with buyer Holmes. Thus she had no fiduciary duty to them to act in and serve their best interests.
It’s just a case of semantics, here, but an important one, at that, in the eyes of the court. As UR, would say, Summer was “banging both sides,” lol, and that is an apt description in this case. The unsuspecting Holmeses probably never realized that she was NOT “representing them,” even though she wrote their offer and got it “accepted.”
Yes, this case DID turn out the way it should have.
Again, lesson learned here, potential-buyer Piggs.
January 31, 2011 at 11:53 AM #660819Participant[quote=pabloesqobar]”The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.[/quote]
I read and comprehend everything just fine, pablo. On October 29, 2010, near the beginning of this thread and even before reading the entire opinion or any of the cases that were cited, I stated:
[quote=bearishgurl]…I am presently going over the opinion with a fine-toothed comb. The seller’s agent here was apparently acting in a dual-agency capacity (why do buyers do this???). Since buyers had no agent, the listing agent actually brought the buyers’ offer to the sellers. Buyers sold their own residence based upon the representation by sellers that they would sell them their property at the agreed-upon price…[/quote]
An agent acting in a “dual-agent capacity” and a “dual agent” are often NOT one and the same. Summer was NOT a “dual agent” because she never signed an Agency Confirmation with buyer Holmes. Thus she had no fiduciary duty to them to act in and serve their best interests.
It’s just a case of semantics, here, but an important one, at that, in the eyes of the court. As UR, would say, Summer was “banging both sides,” lol, and that is an apt description in this case. The unsuspecting Holmeses probably never realized that she was NOT “representing them,” even though she wrote their offer and got it “accepted.”
Yes, this case DID turn out the way it should have.
Again, lesson learned here, potential-buyer Piggs.
January 31, 2011 at 11:53 AM #660957Participant[quote=pabloesqobar]”The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.[/quote]
I read and comprehend everything just fine, pablo. On October 29, 2010, near the beginning of this thread and even before reading the entire opinion or any of the cases that were cited, I stated:
[quote=bearishgurl]…I am presently going over the opinion with a fine-toothed comb. The seller’s agent here was apparently acting in a dual-agency capacity (why do buyers do this???). Since buyers had no agent, the listing agent actually brought the buyers’ offer to the sellers. Buyers sold their own residence based upon the representation by sellers that they would sell them their property at the agreed-upon price…[/quote]
An agent acting in a “dual-agent capacity” and a “dual agent” are often NOT one and the same. Summer was NOT a “dual agent” because she never signed an Agency Confirmation with buyer Holmes. Thus she had no fiduciary duty to them to act in and serve their best interests.
It’s just a case of semantics, here, but an important one, at that, in the eyes of the court. As UR, would say, Summer was “banging both sides,” lol, and that is an apt description in this case. The unsuspecting Holmeses probably never realized that she was NOT “representing them,” even though she wrote their offer and got it “accepted.”
Yes, this case DID turn out the way it should have.
Again, lesson learned here, potential-buyer Piggs.
January 31, 2011 at 11:53 AM #661288Participant[quote=pabloesqobar]”The Holmeses did not have an agent.” It took you a long time to get there, but you finally get it. Congratulations.[/quote]
I read and comprehend everything just fine, pablo. On October 29, 2010, near the beginning of this thread and even before reading the entire opinion or any of the cases that were cited, I stated:
[quote=bearishgurl]…I am presently going over the opinion with a fine-toothed comb. The seller’s agent here was apparently acting in a dual-agency capacity (why do buyers do this???). Since buyers had no agent, the listing agent actually brought the buyers’ offer to the sellers. Buyers sold their own residence based upon the representation by sellers that they would sell them their property at the agreed-upon price…[/quote]
An agent acting in a “dual-agent capacity” and a “dual agent” are often NOT one and the same. Summer was NOT a “dual agent” because she never signed an Agency Confirmation with buyer Holmes. Thus she had no fiduciary duty to them to act in and serve their best interests.
It’s just a case of semantics, here, but an important one, at that, in the eyes of the court. As UR, would say, Summer was “banging both sides,” lol, and that is an apt description in this case. The unsuspecting Holmeses probably never realized that she was NOT “representing them,” even though she wrote their offer and got it “accepted.”
Yes, this case DID turn out the way it should have.
Again, lesson learned here, potential-buyer Piggs.
January 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM #660172
CoronitaParticipantThis thread reminds me why I hate legal shit.
Engineering is so much cut and dry…. It works, or it doesnt work…
There’s none of this technicality shit about this product can be in a “working capacity” versus “is working”… But I’m going to have to start using these fancy word decorators.
The next time my crap doesn’t work, I’ll just say “well, it has working capacity”. Thanks folks for giving me better ideas.
January 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM #660235CoronitaParticipantThis thread reminds me why I hate legal shit.
Engineering is so much cut and dry…. It works, or it doesnt work…
There’s none of this technicality shit about this product can be in a “working capacity” versus “is working”… But I’m going to have to start using these fancy word decorators.
The next time my crap doesn’t work, I’ll just say “well, it has working capacity”. Thanks folks for giving me better ideas.
January 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM #660839CoronitaParticipantThis thread reminds me why I hate legal shit.
Engineering is so much cut and dry…. It works, or it doesnt work…
There’s none of this technicality shit about this product can be in a “working capacity” versus “is working”… But I’m going to have to start using these fancy word decorators.
The next time my crap doesn’t work, I’ll just say “well, it has working capacity”. Thanks folks for giving me better ideas.
January 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM #660977CoronitaParticipantThis thread reminds me why I hate legal shit.
Engineering is so much cut and dry…. It works, or it doesnt work…
There’s none of this technicality shit about this product can be in a “working capacity” versus “is working”… But I’m going to have to start using these fancy word decorators.
The next time my crap doesn’t work, I’ll just say “well, it has working capacity”. Thanks folks for giving me better ideas.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.