From: "Caliban" 
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Is residential listing agreement binding?
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 21:35:28 GMT

"JD"  wrote
> "Caliban"  wrote
snip (agree to disagree)
> > I am not so sure cancellation is as easy as JD attests. Such easy
> > cancellation defeats the purpose of having a contract in the first
place,
> > after all.
>
> No it doesn't. A proper cancellation does not release the seller to list
> elsewhere unless the broker agrees to it.

"Proper" according to whom?

A "proper" cancellation to me means the client is free to go find another
agent and sell *or* not sell the house, period.

What you're saying is the client is not really free to cancel the contract.
The client should expect, at best, a revision to the original contract.

> So, if the agreement is for 6
> months and cancelled after one, the seller may only re-list with the
> original broker during the next 5 months. A smart broker will also state
> that the new listing will be for no less than the period of the initial
> agreement. Some cancellations also protect the broker in case of a FSBO
> transaction during the covered period.
>
> How does this defeat the purpose of the agreement. All a listing agreement
> does is give the broker the right to a commission if he sells the
property.

As you know a listing agreement has a lot more words and obligations than
this. Most notably, it typically specifies a time period during which the
agent has to sell the house under the terms in the agreement.

> It does not guarantee the broker's inventory.
>
> Again, in a service business, there is no need to be punitive and foolish
to
> do so.

It's not about being punitive. It's *entirely* reasonable for one party of a
signed contract to expect the other party to fulfill his or her commitment
under the terms of the contract.

What's foolish about a reasonable agent asking this and thus ensuring his/er
commission if the terms of the contract are fulfilled and the house is sold
by the contracted agent?

The only advantage an agent might have to releasing a client from a contract
is if the client is too difficult to work with and thus a waste of time
(which translates to bucks).

Give me some examples of what a disgruntled client  might do if an agent
refused to release him/her entirely from the contract. Maybe you or someone
else will come up with some instances. But in general, the contract's words
are thus for a reason: To make everyone (agent and seller) happy.

> The California agents I've known understand this. Perhaps they're all
> soulless sharks in your neck of the woods.
>
> > Things might be fine, but if I were in your shoes, I would not risk it
and
> > would, if possible, get rid of this agent or be prepared to reject
> anything
> > unreasonable he or she proposes, from the listing price to an offer you
> > really think is inappropriate. I think he or she is taking advantage of
> > someone with little experience.
>
> You assume too much.
>
> A seller should reject anything unreasonable regardless.

You assume dual agency ensures a seller will do this.

> > Keep talking with the newsgroup, researching issues as they arise, and
> > questioning *hard* the agent without agreeing to anything further until
> you
> > feel really good about whatever it is he or she wants you to agree too.
>
> There's no point in this. He wants to cancel and he should ask foir it.

Agreed, but it's not clear he can. Thus my comments.