NAHI, that trade association that unconsionably permits its members to work to correct defects they find themselves on their own inspections, thus destroying the impartiality so precious to our industry, and worse yet, grants this unethical practice to its members in a document oddly titled their Code of Ethics, offered NACHI members a great door prize which was hard to turn down:
-1 hammer.
-2 boxes of roofing nails.
-20 squares of shingles.
To be used by the winning inspector to sell the homeowner a new roof the next time he/she finds a leak on an inspection.
Well, my joke might stink, but not nearly as bad as Scumbag NAHI’s Code of Ethics.
Remember folks… we as inspectors are the only impartial party to a real estate transaction… and should be proud of that fact. Once Scumbag NAHI succeeds in killing our impartiality… they’ll succeed in killing our entire profession.
Sure, it works fine. A dual agent is when the listing office also sells the home. In other words, the broker (through his/her agents) represents both seller and buyer. Here is what goes down in such a situation:
The broker has a duty to be fair.
The listing agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller.
The buyers agent has a fiduciary duty to the buyer.
The system works so long as everyone wears their one hat.
Sometimes the same agent lists and sells the home and in some states must seek and procure written permission from both seller and buyer to represent both. Some agents won’t do it and so hand off one of their clients to another agent.
When buyer’s agency became popular, even file cabinets had to be kept locked as often agents sitting next to each other had clients on opposite sides of a deal.
Thank you. That’s how I feel about it. There would be some serious damage to the bottom line if agents couldn’t sell properties that were listed by other agents in their office.
The article should have warned consumers to avoid Scumbag NAHI members. NAHI put out a 4 page paper earlier this year defending their unethical policies.
Anyone who knows me personally knows that it is not in my nature to call anything a Scumbag, even if it is directed at something as impersonal as a trade association… but here is the problem:
Shortly after NACHI formed I realized that I was burdened with a duty to its members.
A few years later, as NACHI grew, I got nervous because I realized that I now had a duty to NACHI the trade association. A duty to keep it healthy for its members, bla bla bla.
A few years later, as NACHI grew to become a serious player in the industry, I realized that as Founder of one of the larger trade associations, I had a duty to the industry, to make it better for all of us, bla bla bla.
Now that it is quite clear that NACHI is the lone Super Power in the inspection industry, not just with NACHI’s growth but its relative growth compared to the other associations that have taken a nose dive, as Founder, I feel this sense of duty to consumers now.
So as NACHI grew, my scope of responsibility grew from simply members, to NACHI the trade association, to the industry as a whole, and now finally to consumers using the services our industry provides to our fellow Americans. The whole thing has forced me to become, like it or not, an activist. An activist working on behalf of all four aforementioned.
More on Dual Agency
***Dual agency arises where the listing broker who is the actual agent of the seller becomes
also the actual agent, or ostensible or implied agent, of the buyer.
Dual agency also commonly arises when two salespersons associated with the same
broker undertake to represent two or more parties to a transaction. The real estate broker
is then a dual agent.
Although dual agency is a common practice in California, a real estate broker who
represents both parties must act with extreme care.
In any dual agency situation, the broker owes fiduciary duties to both principals. Dual
agents face a particular difficulty with the elements of fiduciary duty which involve
loyalty and confidentiality. Typical examples arise in connection with the negotiation of
price and terms between seller and buyer and negotiation of loan amount and terms
between lender and borrower.
The Legislature recognized this conflict when enacting Section 2079.21 of the Civil
Code. That section states, in part: “A dual agent shall not disclose to the buyer that the
seller is willing to sell the property at a price less than the listing price, without the
express written consent of the seller. A dual agent shall not disclose to the seller that the
buyer is willing to pay a price greater than the offering price, without the express written
consent of the buyer.”
A form of dual agency which has not been specifically addressed in the disclosure
statutes is a broker’s presentation of offers on behalf of two different buyers. This can
easily happen when a broker is showing the same property to two prospective buyers and
both buyers want the broker to write an offer on the property. The situation becomes
even more complex if buyer A is in contract and buyer B makes a back-up offer. Buyer
A’s position is almost certainly weakened and buyer A would have reason to claim that
the real estate broker breached fiduciary duties and obligations by participating in the
offer by buyer B. A broker should not represent two buyers on the same property without
the clear, informed and unequivocal consent of both parties.
