broker

How can you be ready to sign if you were still asking for building docs presumably for due diligence? In addition, till the time you have signed and sent your deposit, the seller has no guarantee that you will sign.

You could have signed the contract and marked it up adding language about the need to review the building documents, assuming of course that language to that effect was not already in the contract you received.

Broker obviously kept you on a string until she had a better deal. She better hope that deal goes through. Why do so many brokers burn bridges?

If the broker received a higher offer - even after a contract was fully executed - they would be legally required to pass it on to the seller. If, at that point, the seller decided that they wanted to go with the new offer, the broker would have no choice in the matter.

Well, the way I look at it, the seller and buyer are the same entity and if they sent out a contract, assuming it was a standard contract, it means that there was a meeting of the minds. I realize the reality of the brokerage industry is diffent, but to me a deal is a deal. I strongly suspect the broker took the three days it had available to try and solicit a higher offer. It worked.

What do you think of buyer asking for building docs? That is supposed to be before you claim you are ready to sign.

See my comment above.

I think the question is whether you are really ready to sign the contact if you still need to review some documents. In my world, once the final contact is sent after the language has been agreed upon by both parties, the buyer needs to sign it unconditionally and send the deposit. Otherwise, there is no meeting of minds.

Yes, 300, I made it clear that the agrieved bidder may have not acted in full good faith by asking for additional documentation. This request may have been viewed by the seller as a concern. It’s the nature of our local industry that a deal is not a deal until the contract is fully executed and deposit funds received. My only point is that the broker (and possibly the bidder) may not have acted in full good faith. To me, a handshake is as good as a contract but I know the NYC market has a different attitude. Did the seller really think they had a deal when they accepted the offer or were they playing a game? Sadly, both are equally likely.

It's not specifically stated by the OP so I can't be sure, but this sounds like it might be a case of why Dept of State dislikes dual agency.

Dual agency is a joke and the antithesis of what is meant by a fiduciary.

What if the seller’s commission is lowered from say 5 percent to 4 percent if it is dual agency and the owner decides to accept a lower offer because of that?

To clarify, we asked for building documents to be sent along with the contract, and the broker agreed. However, the contract came after hours on Thursday but not the building documents. We asked again when we actually met the broker again in person on Friday and the broker promised to send them. They never came. We are indeed ready to sign, meaning our attorney has approved the contract and we have the deposit in the bank. As stated before, Monday is Columbus Day holiday, and only when we asked the broker again on Tuesday for the building documents, she dropped the bomb of deal is off.

A fiduciary always puts the best interests of the client ahead of their own self-interest. A dual agent cannot by definition have the best interests of two parties who are on opposite sides of the same transaction. In the example above, the question is not whether the seller (and buyer) accepted the deal, it's whether the agent acted solely in the best interests of the seller. But that is not possible as the agent is also representing the buyer.

This is the misconception about dual agency. Achieving a "meeting of the minds" does not mean the agent fairly represented each side.

Just to play Devil's Advocate:
The OP never talks about having an attorney. They mention the contract being sent to "us", and then asking for "documents about the building." They don't mention when their offer was accepted or what documents they requested (was it just the Offering Plan and Annual Financials?).
Normally the docs are sent to the purchaser's attorney immediately after the accepted offer (before even the contract).
With only the information given it's easy to think of scenarios where the seller may not have taken the buyer seriously.

In response to Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO,

1. The seller accepted our offer on 10/3/2018. We asked the broker to send the contract and building governing documents to our attorney. The broker responded that the deal sheet will be sent to our attorney in the morning. With regard to also send the building governing documents to our attorney, the broker responded "Will do.". All these communications happened on 10/3/2018.
2. The deal sheet was not sent to our attorney until after hours (after 5) on 10/4/2018. We have been asking "have they been sent" during the day.
3. We met the broker at the co-op in person again on Friday, 10/5/2018 after 5 per her invitation to show us what improvements have been made by the seller, who was out of town.
4. At the conclusion of the meeting on 10/5/2018, the broker said the building governing documents will be sent to our attorney. At the same time, we reiterated that we are ready to sign the contract. The meeting ended amicably.
5. Then, there was the long weekend. As far as we know, the broker held another open house over the long weekend, which is after the seller accepted the offer and sent out the contract to our attorney.
6. We had no communication from the broker since late Friday evening when we last spoke in person until Tuesday, 10/9/2018, noon time, when we asked the broker when will the building governing documents be sent as we are ready to sign the contract. It was at that time, the broker broke her silence and told us the deal is off.

Note: StreetEasy has been reviewing our submissions and delayed releasing it online citing the reason that we are "new", which is understandable.

"the seller may not have taken the buyer seriously".

Well, it is possible that the buyer may have blinked which may have chilled the deal. Was reviewing the documents a retrade of some sorts? Were these discussions attorney to attorney? Was a buyer broker involved? We don't know. What we do know if that the Seller took it seriously enough to have closing counsel send out a contract on mutually agreeable terms which one side appears to have reneged on. If the broker was a dual agent, she certainly picked sides.

However the only alternative for her "picking sides" may have been "breaking the law."

Well, it's one thing for a broker to receive a better bid which they must disclose to their client and another thing to actively solicit better bids while waiting for a signed contract to arrive. Neither is illegal but maybe only one is ethical. But that is between you and your personal ethics, I guess. But I fear I am a lone wolf on this issue.

I mean of course, between a seller/broker and their personal/professional ethics.