Read the following fact pattern and tell me whether or not you would pay a broker 3% commission under these circumstances. 1) You are selling your apartment FSBO (for sale by owner) and advertising on CraigsList. 2) On Day 20 of your FSBO listing, you agree in a written e-mail to allow the #3 NYC brokerage firm to post it in their internal database available to their brokers only and to pay a... [more]
Read the following fact pattern and tell me whether or not you would pay a broker 3% commission under these circumstances.
1) You are selling your apartment FSBO (for sale by owner) and advertising on CraigsList.
2) On Day 20 of your FSBO listing, you agree in a written e-mail to allow the #3 NYC brokerage firm to post it in their internal database available to their brokers only and to pay a broker from that firm 3% if and only if they bring the buyer.
3) On Day 33 of your FSBO listing, a potential buyer shows up at your Open House from having seen it on CraigsList and says that their broker will contact you.
4) Later that same day, the potential buyer’s broker calls to ask about the apartment, and later that same evening, the same broker e-mails an offer on behalf of the buyer. As it turns out, the broker is from the #3 firm which has the apartment in their internal database.
5) Said broker does other broker tasks such as coordination through executed contract, appraisal, and board package preparation.
Would you pay this broker 3% of your sales price?
[less]
Response by NWT
over 16 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008
Sure. Doesn't matter how the buyer first heard about the apartment.
If your question is actually "must I pay the 3%" then that'd depend on what you agreed to in step 2, whether e-mail is sufficient for such an agreement, and other technicalities.
What'd your lawyer think of the agreement to begin with?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by DePhillips
over 16 years ago
Posts: 10
Member since: Aug 2007
Reguardless of how a buyer is presented to the seller is not an issue. Dumb luck pays the same as extended marketing and showings. It is your right to ask for an adjustment in the commission amount, if your agreement specifically addresses all the might haves good for you. Whos to say that you would not still be setting on your unsold property if not for the brokers marketing efforts which you may have just benefited.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by West81st
over 16 years ago
Posts: 5564
Member since: Jan 2008
Unless the price is so high that 3% represents serious coin, I'd pay the commission just to avoid the hassle and possible legal expense of a protracted battle with a major brokerage house. Whether you actually owe them the money depends on the wording of those e-mails, but is it really worth fighting over? The principle at stake is probably much more important to them than it is to you.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NWT
over 16 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008
Exactly. The brokerage house, having been to this rodeo before, knows how to word these things.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by West81st
over 16 years ago
Posts: 5564
Member since: Jan 2008
BTW, from the way you tell the story, I get the feeling you're the aggrieved broker, not the seller. If that's the case, I'd like to hear the other side of the story.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by joedavis
over 16 years ago
Posts: 703
Member since: Aug 2007
are only insider postings allowed now?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NWT
over 16 years ago
Posts: 6643
Member since: Sep 2008
Though we do know Columbus is/was trying to sell on his own. The cute little rowhouse apartment on 81st.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Village
over 16 years ago
Posts: 240
Member since: Dec 2008
Yes, I would pay the 3%. Honestly, when the potential buyer said, "my broker will call you" seller knew that any offer that came in from that buyer would have a commission attached. Seller could have said, "I'd rather deal directly with you" and tried to have a conversation around whether or not the buyer would deal direct.
I also agree with West 81st - keen to hear the other side.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by romary
over 16 years ago
Posts: 443
Member since: Aug 2008
pay the 3% - ditto what they say W81 and Village
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by drdrd
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1905
Member since: Apr 2007
Pay 'em. Next.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYRENewbie
over 16 years ago
Posts: 591
Member since: Mar 2008
Yes.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Fluter
over 16 years ago
Posts: 372
Member since: Apr 2009
#3 brokerage? If you don't pay you might find yourself in court. A recent decision (Wed NY Law Journal week before last) found that emails can be binding on sellers. You might want to look that article up to read the details of the decision.
And no, W81, Columbus is not the agent/broker, I think this is the principal talking. Because licensees know if they use the word "appraisal" regarding what is really a comparative market analysis, they can lose their license for doing so.
{from peaceful agent-to-be}
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by anonymous
over 16 years ago
fluter, no i think he meant coordinating the appraisal- getting appraiser in to the property, helping with comps., etc.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Sure. Doesn't matter how the buyer first heard about the apartment.
If your question is actually "must I pay the 3%" then that'd depend on what you agreed to in step 2, whether e-mail is sufficient for such an agreement, and other technicalities.
What'd your lawyer think of the agreement to begin with?
Reguardless of how a buyer is presented to the seller is not an issue. Dumb luck pays the same as extended marketing and showings. It is your right to ask for an adjustment in the commission amount, if your agreement specifically addresses all the might haves good for you. Whos to say that you would not still be setting on your unsold property if not for the brokers marketing efforts which you may have just benefited.
Unless the price is so high that 3% represents serious coin, I'd pay the commission just to avoid the hassle and possible legal expense of a protracted battle with a major brokerage house. Whether you actually owe them the money depends on the wording of those e-mails, but is it really worth fighting over? The principle at stake is probably much more important to them than it is to you.
Exactly. The brokerage house, having been to this rodeo before, knows how to word these things.
BTW, from the way you tell the story, I get the feeling you're the aggrieved broker, not the seller. If that's the case, I'd like to hear the other side of the story.
are only insider postings allowed now?
Though we do know Columbus is/was trying to sell on his own. The cute little rowhouse apartment on 81st.
Yes, I would pay the 3%. Honestly, when the potential buyer said, "my broker will call you" seller knew that any offer that came in from that buyer would have a commission attached. Seller could have said, "I'd rather deal directly with you" and tried to have a conversation around whether or not the buyer would deal direct.
I also agree with West 81st - keen to hear the other side.
pay the 3% - ditto what they say W81 and Village
Pay 'em. Next.
Yes.
#3 brokerage? If you don't pay you might find yourself in court. A recent decision (Wed NY Law Journal week before last) found that emails can be binding on sellers. You might want to look that article up to read the details of the decision.
And no, W81, Columbus is not the agent/broker, I think this is the principal talking. Because licensees know if they use the word "appraisal" regarding what is really a comparative market analysis, they can lose their license for doing so.
{from peaceful agent-to-be}
fluter, no i think he meant coordinating the appraisal- getting appraiser in to the property, helping with comps., etc.