[MT930]

Originally Posted by notfarnow

Rules vary too much Canada vs US, and even state by state for me to comment on specifics, but a listing agent's duties to a potential purchaser can be very, very limited.

Depending on whether or not your justisdiction has different agency duties for "clients" vs "customers", the listing agent may not be required to advise the buyer of certain issues, whether its with the house or with the legal transfer. The assumption is that the buyer is to protect themselves through the inspection & title search, AT THEIR EXPENSE.

A listing agent will be inclined to act in the best interest of of a long-term client, be it a bank, relocation company, or any other significant source of listings and business.

A buyers agent will be inclined to help you avoid certain pitfalls BEFORE you get to the due dilligence stage, and they will be motivated to protect ONLY YOUR interests.

Most of the times I hear people talk about being hard-done by real estate agents, it's in a dicy dual agency situation. People deal directly with a property's agent, and then seem surprised that they acted like a salesman. Of course they did, that's their job. If you want an unbiased opinion that favors YOUR best interest as a buyer, get a buyers agent with strong local knowledge. Just seems so basic.

Not that dual agency is always a problem... sometimes it's great. But dual agency on a bank repo? bad juju, IMO.

Amen ! Same deal here in the US.