# Question regarding privacy and emails.



## TJ01 (Jan 31, 2019)

I recently sold my Aunt's house for what I thought was a reasonably good deal. Now in emailing my agent after the transaction, I told him that maybe we could have gotten a bit more for it. 

He linked me to other properties in the area and tried to convince me otherwise and I was adamant that we possibly could have squeezed a few more dollars out in the deal, but he stood firm and said it would have been unlikely.
Basically two heads bumping at each other, one is right and so is the other.


Well low and behold the buyer's backed out claiming they had discussions with my agent and they were under the impression I wasn't happy with the price and that was it.

Is there or isn't there some kind of confidentiality agreement between an agent and his client? 
I mean can my agent do that behind my back without knowing? I'm very seriously considering litigation against him, after I settle the family stuff in the next few weeks.

Was in within his rights to discuss our (email) conversations after a contract had been signed?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Sounds like an excuse to back out of the deal. I suspect you could complain to the RE association but I doubt you would be successful in obtaining damages. Of course, you should get real legal advice and not from the internet.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Why did you sign off and then complain about the price? This is backwards

This agent apparently did what you wanted and saved you from yourself?

I only tell the agents whether I am negotiable or not. I hold the cards to accept/reject/count an offer


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So, you wanted out of the deal because you were greedy and now you’re complaining about getting out of the deal?


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

So to summarize;

A) You sold for what you thought was a reasonable price.
B) You thought it wasn't reasonable and could've got more.
C) You got your wish, and now can find out if you or your agent are correct about squeezing a few dollars more. 
D) You aren't happy. 

All I know is that buyers can be on the hook for certain costs of a failed real estate transaction, but you'll need a lawyer and a lengthy process. Unfortunately for the buyers, they need a valid reason to back out. Lawyers on both sides are gonna make some good money. 

How much did you sell for and how much more do you think you would've gotten? Is 5 or 10 thousand more a smart fight to pick? You do realize the agent earns a percentage of the sale price, and is motivated to get you the best price possible, right? Was he your agent or a double agent?


----------



## TJ01 (Jan 31, 2019)

Just a Guy said:


> So, you wanted out of the deal because you were greedy and now you’re complaining about getting out of the deal?


Where did I say I wanted out of the deal?


----------



## TJ01 (Jan 31, 2019)

m3s said:


> Why did you sign off and then complain about the price? This is backwards
> 
> This agent apparently did what you wanted and saved you from yourself?
> 
> I only tell the agents whether I am negotiable or not. I hold the cards to accept/reject/count an offer



It was a good deal, but then after I looked around more and though, "hmmm, maybe could have gotten better". I was fine with the price, just thought a little more could have come out of it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Wanting more, expressing the idea to someone else (your realtor), sure sound like you wanted out of the deal you agreed to and wanted more money to me and others who’ve read what you posted.

My advice, next time keep your mouth shut. That “little bit more” greed cost you the deal.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I find your comments ridiculous. If I were the agent, I would be telling you to find someone else to sell the property for you now that the sale has fallen through. In the world of sales, it is a well known fact that some customers are simply not worth the trouble of doing business with them. You appear to be one of them.

As for why the buyer backed out, WHO told you what reason they gave? You say, "claiming they had discussions with my agent and they were under the impression I wasn't happy with the price and that was it." So what, we are to believe that the buyer phoned you or e-mailed you directly and told you this was why they were backing out? I'm sure it wasn't your agent that made that statement to you. Was it your lawyer that said that? And on what basis do you say the agent shared info? Do you have any actual evidence showing that? 

Why would a buyer back out because you were unhappy with the price anyway? If I were the buyer and someone said, 'ah, the guy who agreed to the price is now saying it was too low.' My response to that would be 'tough s**t.' Or do you think the buyer was saying, 'oh gee, well if the seller isn't happy, then I will not buy it, I wouldn't want the seller to be upset.'

You are making no sense whatsoever here. In Canada, if a buyer 'backs out' of a deal, they lose their deposit. So where is your comment about the deposit you will now get to keep? 

To write, "I was fine with the price, just thought a little more could have come out of it.", is beyond ridiculous. Either you were 'fine' or you were 'not fine', make up your mind. If you are not 'fine' with it, YOU made that decision to accept an offer, that's on YOU, not on anyone else. You would have done better to come on here and write, 'I stupidly accepted an offer that I now believe to have been lower than the real market value of the property. That deal has now fallen through thank goodness. How can I make sure I don't make another stupid decision on another offer?' That would have at least have shown you taking responsibility for your own actions.

You could have then said, 'my agent says the offer was a good offer but I'm not buying that.' Then the advice you would have gotten would be simple. Find another agent.

Instead, here you are blaming the agent who did NOT make the decision to sell and saying you are considering litigation against him. Yes, blame anyone but yourself. My advice in that regard is YES, go and litigate. See how much you will pay a lawyer to take the case to court and have a judge tell you that the decisions you make are YOUR responsibility. No doubt you will then blame your lawyer for losing the case.

I get sick and tired of people who blame others and do not take responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

It occurs to me that the agent may have a case to bring against you for defamation if you are going around saying to people that the agent shared your e-mail messages, that can harm his reputation. Unless you have PROOF that he did that, YOU are likely to be found guilty of defamation if he brought a case and can show you made such statements to just ONE other person.

Now that would be ironic.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

The buyers backed out because they heard you weren't happy with the price? That sounds bogus to me. I mean, if I were the buyer and heard that, I'd say too bad, so sad, the agreement was signed and done with. I doubt the buyers backed out for this reason.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Well TJ01, it would appear that you came to the wrong place for sympathy, or even much advice on the tort of breach of confidence. 

Let's deal first with the breach of confidence issue. 

We'll assume that, in your case, the deal was lost because the real snake imparted to the purchasers that you were unhappy with the deal. 

It was probably an error in judgment for the realtor to relate that fact to the purchasers, but was it a civil wrong, or what lawyers would call a “tort” (not a “torte”, as in strawberry torte)?

In British Columbia, in _Fraser Health Authority_ v. _Hospital Employees’ Union_, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1192, 2003 BCSC 807 (S.C.), at para. 25, the court set out a three part test to sustain a breach of confidence action. The plaintiff must show:

(a) the information has the necessary quality of confidence about it;

(b) the information was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and

(c) there must be a misuse of that information to the detriment of the confider.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/03/08/2003BCSC0807.htm

I am not sure, in your case, that any of the above tests are met. I would not find it unusual in the least, in the course of the give and take of negotiations, for a realtor to say to the purchaser something like: “The vendor has reluctantly accepted your counter-offer.” Or: “The vendor isn’t happy about it, but he recognizes he is selling into a soft market and he accepts that your offer might be the best obtainable at present.”

It also seems to me that you telling the agent that you think you left some money on the table is not really an utterance importing the “necessary quality of confidence”. It’s not the same as sharing a trade secret. For an example of the latter see:

Cadbury Schweppes Inc. and Cadbury Beverages Canada Inc./Breuvages Cadbury Canada Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd. - Les Aliments FBI Ltee., FBI Brands Ltd. - Les Marques FBI Ltee., Irving Glassner and Lawrence Kurlender, (1996), 23 B.C.L.R. (3d) 325 (C.A.)

*FIDUCIARIES* — Breach of duty — Breach of confidence • *INJUNCTIONS* — Availability — Breach of confidence • *INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY* — Remedies — Defendants making use of confidential information in copying and using "Clamato" recipe — Trial judge awarding "headstart" damages for breach of confidence based on what defendants would have paid to develop competitive recipe — Appeal court directing assessment based on defendants' "unauthorized sales" and granting injunction.

https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/96/05/c96-0506.txt

As for talking lawsuit, even assuming you have a cause of action against the agent, more fertile ground for a suit might be found in the contract of purchase and sale itself. Were there any subject clauses in favour of the purchaser, such as subject to financing, or inspection? If the purchasers backed out before the subjects were removed, then it was not yet a binding deal. You probably do not have a good suit against anyone in that case (leaving aside those cases suggesting that a purchaser must make “best efforts” to fulfill a subject clause). 

If there were no subjects, or if they had been lifted, such that the deal was final and binding, then the purchasers were legally bound to complete, notwithstanding any improvident comments of your realtor. You would likely have a very good cause of action against the purchasers for breach of contract.

Ignoring the maxim that one must be rich or crazy to start a lawsuit, keep in mind that to make any suit worthwhile, you must have a claim for a fair amount of damages and a good prospect of collecting said damages should you win. As to the former issue - quantum of damages - it is always necessary in any lawsuit not only to show that you were wronged, but also that you suffered measurable loss.

In failed real estate transactions, loss is generally measured in reference to the contract price. If the contract price was $800,000 and the purchasers backed out, you must seek to mitigate your damages by going back into the marketplace and making your best effort to get the best price obtainable. Let’s say you do that and the best you can get is a deal for $700,000. You may ask the court to award you the difference of $100,000. If you manage to sell at $850,000, you have suffered no loss, so no point in suing.

There is an alternate form of remedy available in real estate transactions, that of “specific performance”. You ask the court to order the purchaser to stick to the contract and to pay the agreed price. But, if you are already whining about the price, it would seem incongruous to ask the court to order closed a deal with which you are not happy.

Let’s go back to the idea of suing the real snake. Let’s suppose you convince the court that there was a breach of confidence. What is the measure of your loss? The realtor sabotaged a deal with which you had already expressed discontent. That hardly seems like good fodder to support a claim for substantial damages.

In the final analysis, what I see here is that you are suffering a case of vendor’s remorse. Probably the realtor came in with a full price offer (or something close) which you accepted, now you are left wondering if you should have listed higher, held out for more, etc. We have all been to that movie at some point. Anyway, you can now rejoice in the fact that the deal is dead and you are free to pursue a greater yield. I would send the realtor a thank you note.

Thus endeth yet another MP “diatribe”.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Every seller thinks he should have got more, and every buyer thinks he is over paying. This is a law of nature that has not changed in ten thousand years. Nobody backs out of a deal because the seller wants more money. Go tell your story to judge Judy and get a hearty laugh all around.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Why would the seller's realtor convince the buyer to back out of a deal so that the realtor doesn't get paid? That defies logic.
Even if he agrees with your line of reasoning that you could have got more, an extra 40K in sale price nets him (after expenses and fees) probably under $500. Do you think he'd want to throw away a guaranteed commission for the potential to possibly make $500 more in the future? No chance.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

nobleea said:


> Why would the seller's realtor convince the buyer to back out of a deal so that the realtor doesn't get paid? That defies logic.
> Even if he agrees with your line of reasoning that you could have got more, an extra 40K in sale price nets him (after expenses and fees) probably under $500. Do you think he'd want to throw away a guaranteed commission for the potential to possibly make $500 more in the future? No chance.


It is not plain that the realtor did any "convincing". As I read the narrative, it seems more like the realtor was just having casual conversation with the purchasers and commented that the vendor was not thrilled. Indeed, the realtor may be been seeking to tell them what a great deal they got, because the vendor was now feeling he could have got more. The purchasers (in what sounds like a most unusual turn of events), decided to withdraw from the deal, apparently saying, in effect "If he's not happy, then we want out." That's what I take from the passage below:




TJ01 said:


> Well low and behold the buyer's backed out claiming they had discussions with my agent and they were under the impression I wasn't happy with the price and that was it.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> Why would a buyer back out because you were unhappy with the price anyway? If I were the buyer and someone said, 'ah, the guy who agreed to the price is now saying it was too low.' My response to that would be 'tough s**t.' Or do you think the buyer was saying, 'oh gee, well if the seller isn't happy, then I will not buy it, I wouldn't want the seller to be upset.'


To be fair, a very unhappy seller can be a real pain. I've been there (house was an overpriced poorly renovated 2-year flip in a fairly neutral market). The seller did some really stupid things like removing/replacing stuff he wasn't supposed to before leaving, for no significant gain on his side but certainly a lot of wasted time. Not enough to be worth legal action over... but very annoying anyway. If I were in the same position again and in no hurry to buy, I would certainly consider backing out of a deal with such a sore seller. Granted, according to my agent back then, he was vastly more unhappy than TJ01 appears to have been here. I was later told that the very experienced selling agent even agreed to lower his commission to get rid of the guy. No idea if there's any truth to that but I wouldn't be surprised. Agents don't make a lot of money moving prices, they make a lot of money on volume. And that means reducing the fuss around each transaction so they can handle more.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

off.by.10 said:


> Agents don't make a lot of money moving prices, they make a lot of money on volume. And that means reducing the fuss around each transaction so they can handle more.


In one sphere they _do_ make a lot of money "moving prices". I have had no shortage of experience with agents saying words such as "If we list at $700,000, we should be able to stick to that price and get it, whereas if we ask any higher, we risk getting no offers." So, okay, we take that advice and list at $700,000. The agent already knows that's a bit on the high side, but if he shows much inclination to list at $650,000, he won't get the listing. So, the place goes on the market at $700,000. After 2 weeks, the agent calls and says words such as, the market is softening a bit, or the product you are selling is not so much what's in demand right now, etc. They want you to cut the price by, say, $50,000. That's a significant amount to a vendor, but in terms of agent's commission, the difference in a sale at $700,000 and $650,000 is peanuts in the impact on commission and it gets the commission a lot sooner and at less cost to the realtor if you can be persuaded to cut and run. 

The other agent line I have had used on me goes like this:

Seller: I thought you said we could stick to our price if we listed at $700,000, yet now you are suggesting I should take the offer you just obtained for $650,000, three days into the listing. What gives?
"
Agent: Well, I know, but the first offer is often the best. 

Also, in either of the above scenarios where the agent is working to lower his own client's expectations, there's an array of other tactics employed. Sometimes it is now, for the first time, to tell you everything wrong with what you are selling. There's too much traffic going by; there's no main floor powder room; the place lacks the open concept everyone wants today; the backyard is not fence; the roof looks like it won't last long; and on and on. But, when they looked at the place in hopes of getting a listing, they spoke only in glowing terms.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

off.by.10 said:


> To be fair, a very unhappy seller can be a real pain.


This sounds like what could have happened, and is the original impetus for the OP claiming that the realtor's confidentiality breach sunk the deal. If the OP is crazy, just look at this thread, and the buyers caught wind of this from a conversation with a normal but (likely) frustrated realtor, then they may have decided that they didn't want to buy a crazy person's house because god only know what he might have done to the place over the years...

Sounds like the OP may have a case... But good luck at the initial consult with the lawyer...


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Sounds like some people don't like real estate agents. They are like anyone else in a sales profession, you must find one you TRUST. If you do that, then none of the wild speculation as to what went on will exist.

I spent my entire working career in sales and enjoy it whenever I now have to interact with a salesperson as a buyer or seller. Whether it is a clueless sales CLERK in a store with no sales skills whatsoever, trying to sell me an extended warranty. "What are you telling me, you expect it to fail between the 1 year warranty from the manufacturer and the 3 year extended warranty you want to sell me? If it is likely to fail between 1 and 3 years, why on earth would you think I would buy it in the first place? Now tell me again why you think I should buy a 3 year extended warranty from you.'

Or whether it is a top notch real estate salesperson who is good at what they do and will get me either the lowest price if I am buying or the highest price if I am selling. 'So you feel pretty sure you can get me $700k and earn your 3% commission. OK, how about I offer to pay you 4% and you get me $750k. If you get me $750k I will pay 4% and if you get me anything less than that I will pay you 2.5%. Let's see if you are any good at selling or only at listing properties.'

Some years ago in the UK, I made an agent an offer like that and he accepted it. He found a buyer and got me an offer at 15% over what I expected to get. Paying him an extra 1% was well worth doing. 

Real estate sales is a profession just like any other profession. There are professionals and there are amateurs to be found. The housewife who sells real estate as a part time job is not likely to inspire me with much confidence in her sales abilities. The agent who can show me the asking price and selling prices (with those on average being higher than the asking price) of the last 12 houses he sold in the last 2 months, is. That's if I am selling. If I am buying I want him to show me the opposite obviously.

The key is find an agent you have confidence and trust in, just like a good auto mechanic or lawyer.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Any difference in buying/selling a house from anything else is handled by the lawyer at much less cost of a RE agent. I don't use an agent to buy/sell anything besides a house. Mostly because work pays them but also because they have access to protected information. If everything was listed openly online they would lose a lot of their power.

Without protected information, there is no need for sales agents in the days of the internet where you can quickly inform yourself. Most sales agents have been bypassed by online stores for all but the older generations. Do you really need a mattress sales man blowing smoke? Not if you can find a far better deal online easier than driving to a store.

Car dealerships will go soon, it's already starting. I suspect RE agents will go last because of their protected information such as recent listings. I don't put trust in a mattress, car or mutual funds salesperson to hand me a deal and I certainly don't trust a RE agent to decide on a deal. The buyer/seller calls the shots and the agents are just a necessity until everyone realizes the internet exists.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> Sounds like some people don't like real estate agents. They are like anyone else in a sales profession, you must find one you TRUST. If you do that, then none of the wild speculation as to what went on will exist.


I neither like nor dislike RE agents as a group. Some I'll drink beer with. They are decent folks. Some are "real snakes". Good and bad, just as with any other "profession".

I recognize that, today, every endeavour is a _profession_. Professional toilet cleaners and so on up. Gone are the days when there's such a thing as the true professions. I disagree with the modern view, but my disagreement counts for zip.

As for getting an agent you TRUST, that's easy to say, more difficult in the execution. It is not hard to be introduced to one who seems to have impeccable credentials, is highly regarded and recommended, brings to the table what appears to be a balanced, level-headed approach to things and is downright likeable. Has a strong sales record, etc. But really, in my view, until you have worked with that person for awhile, you cannot really get very far with trust. It must be developed and earned. 

It's easy to see one's agent as a rockstar if selling into a hot market. I have sold more than once well over asking price. That was not because my realtor was a real stud. It's because the Vancouver market was so hot that what seemed high today was a bargain tomorrow. Over the years, I have probably bought and sold maybe 20 properties with realtors involved. Twice I did not feel particularly well served. Once was when the agent suggested that the first offer often the best, seemingly trying to spook me into believing that a better offer might not be achieved. I simply held my ground and waited to get ask. I did not offer to put more money on the table as an incentive. That to me seems less than professional. I am willing to pay a fair price for fair service. If the realtor tells me he charges "x" for his services, I trust that he has priced himself fairly and he will work diligently. If I offer to sweeten the pot and he takes the bait, that does not inspire my confidence. He might better have told me that he'll do a lukewarm job for 3%, but he'll step up his game for 4%. He should be full on once hired, or not on at all. Who wants to hire a doctor who says "I'll treat your cancer for $20,000. Give me $30,000 and I'll really pull out all the stops, and you just might survive"?

The other experience was when I was ambivalent about selling a property. The realtor told be he could get me $100,000 more than I had paid some months earlier. Sounded optimistic, but I said go ahead, but don't ask me to come down later. Well, about a month later he said the price seemed high in the market and people were not going to bite. I reminded him of our conversation. We agreed to tear up the listing. I kept the place. Still have it. Worth 3 times what it was then. No regrets.

I most other deals I have made, as buyer I have not employed a purchaser's agent. I do my own research and know what I am prepared to pay. Nothing the vendor's agent says or does influences me. Usually dealing with them is a neutral experience.

The only real estate I have purchased in recent years has been to invest in forest lands. I have yet to meet a realtor who knows or understands that market at all. In some ways that is to my advantage. One finds properties with good timber values listed by owners who have never paid much attention to the timber. I do not know of one realtor who is able to conduct even the most basic timber cruise. So they arrive at a listing price completely oblivious to the number of cubic meters of timber on the lands, the species, the current prices for each species, the likely cost of harvesting that timber and getting it to market. They are unable to predict, even in the most rudimentary way, how much increase in timber volume one can expect on a particular parcel year over year. Sometimes there are restrictions that prevent the timber from being harvested at all. That requires some specialized knowledge of forestry and applicable regulatory regimes. All they know is their client is selling 80 acres of bush. One would think that a _professional_ should be held to a higher standard.

I have never sold a lot I bought for timber. I finally took to heart what an old timber baron said to me years ago: You always _buy_ land; you never _sell_ land. But if the day comes I decide to sell, it will test my mettle to find a realtor to entrust with the job. Selling on my own is far more likely, which I have done a number of times with residential real estate.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Mukhang pera said:


> The only real estate I have purchased in recent years has been to invest in forest lands. I have yet to meet a realtor who knows or understands that market at all. In some ways that is to my advantage. One finds properties with good timber values listed by owners who have never paid much attention to the timber.
> 
> I do not know of one realtor who is able to conduct even the most basic timber cruise. So they arrive at a listing price completely oblivious to the number of cubic meters of timber on the lands, the species, the current prices for each species, the likely cost of harvesting that timber and getting it to market. They are unable to predict, even in the most rudimentary way, how much increase in timber volume one can expect on a particular parcel year over year. Sometimes there are restrictions that prevent the timber from being harvested at all. That requires some specialized knowledge of forestry and applicable regulatory regimes. All they know is their client is selling 80 acres of bush. One would think that a _professional_ should be held to a higher standard.
> 
> I have never sold a lot I bought for timber. I finally took to heart what an old timber baron said to me years ago: You always _buy_ land; you never _sell_ land. But if the day comes I decide to sell, it will test my mettle to find a realtor to entrust with the job. Selling on my own is far more likely, which I have done a number of times with residential real estate.




^^ this is really interesting! but i'm sure the big lumber companies have timber cruisers & appraisers who can spot the dollar value of an acre of forested land down to the last penny. A knowledge gap might appear when it comes to smaller wood lots, say 25 to 100 acres here or there.

in eastern canada & NE US of A, there are small woodlot forest managers who can appraise forest growth property. I have a friend w country place in vermont, her forest is managed by one of these companies, which means they selectively harvest some trees every year & plant some seedlings. For sure that company knows the value of working vermont woodlots.

i'm thinking you must have similar woodlot managers in BC? they're probably few & far between, the good ones are probably heavily booked up, they would have nothing in common with a real estate agent selling homes & even country homes. At the above-mentioned vermont managed woodlot, the forest contractor doesn't "do" the open meadows/fields that belong to the property, so my friend has to mow these herself, which she does once a year, the idea being to promote meadow wild flowers but keep brush growth under control.

MP you mentioned a year or 2 ago you were thinking of raising walnut trees for nut crops with a neighbour. Walnuts are a fast-growing crop you said. They are not native to eastern canada - a bit too cold - but some specimen black walnut trees do thrive here & there, having been planted by ag schools, arborists & similar experienced growers. Just one mature black walnut tree is said to be worth $10,000-50,000.

.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I think Longtimeago captured it all in his posts. Otherwise, the only way this story makes sense is if this was a conditional offer that OP accepted; that the purchaser later called the agent and said "I'm really sorry, we can't meet the condition (can't get financing, or whatever) and will have to withdraw the offer without penalty as specified in our agreement; and the agent happened to remark (in passing) "I'm real sorry to hear that, but if it makes you feel any better the seller won't be too broken up over it, because he thinks he can get a better price anyway. 

There would be no reason whatsoever for the agent to convey information to the buyer that would cause him to cancel the deal, because it would be money out of the agent's pocket on what appeared to be a done deal.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

m3s said:


> Any difference in buying/selling a house from anything else is handled by the lawyer at much less cost of a RE agent. I don't use an agent to buy/sell anything besides a house. Mostly because work pays them but also because they have access to protected information. If everything was listed openly online they would lose a lot of their power.
> 
> Without protected information, there is no need for sales agents in the days of the internet where you can quickly inform yourself. Most sales agents have been bypassed by online stores for all but the older generations. Do you really need a mattress sales man blowing smoke? Not if you can find a far better deal online easier than driving to a store.
> 
> Car dealerships will go soon, it's already starting. I suspect RE agents will go last because of their protected information such as recent listings. I don't put trust in a mattress, car or mutual funds salesperson to hand me a deal and I certainly don't trust a RE agent to decide on a deal. The buyer/seller calls the shots and the agents are just a necessity until everyone realizes the internet exists.


So now it seems some people don't think salespeople are needed. And others (Mukhang pera) think salespeople are not 'professionals'. Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion of course but that doesn't mean they are right.

I realize that many people may share your opinion m3s and I even share it myself on some things. No, you don't need a salesperson to sell you a TV at BestBuy. But just like you could go online and teach yourself to be an auto mechanic and repair your own car, there are things that require specific skills that the average person does not have when it comes to buying and selling and that it would not make practical sense for them to spend the time and effort necessary to gain those skills.

You are making the ASSUMPTION that a salesperson has no skills or knowledge that you do not already have or could not easily get from the internet. That any such knowledge or skills is not akin to my auto mechanic example but are in fact, simple and easy skills that would not cost you any significant amount of time and effort to get. That is no doubt a common belief but as a professional salesperson I know it to be entirely wrong.

If it took me 20 years to get to the point of being a very good professional salesperson, what makes you think you could do it in less time? There is a difference between a 'sales clerk' in BestBuy who simply 'takes your order' and a professional salesperson. Both may have the word 'sales' in their title or job description but their skill sets are light years apart. I can't explain in detail here unless I was ready to write a book for you to read. 

But I can tell you that while you could buy or sell anything without NEEDING a salesperson, 9 times out of 10, using a professional salesperson would result in a better deal. You will never be as good at buying or selling as a professional salesperson who does it for a living all day, every day. Just as I am sure I could not do your job as well as you can when you have years of experience at it.

For some things, a salesperson is not necessary like buying a TV but for other things, they do add value to the equation with experience, knowledge and skills the average person simply does not have.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I have dealt with excellent sales professionals in real estate, travel agencies, Mercedes and BMW dealerships, and stock brokerages. They have all been worth their weight in gold!

Of course, there are also bad ones as in every line of work.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

If I'm buying a house I'll certainly take the time to learn the market myself. No RE agent knows what's best for me better than I do. If I'm selling a house and I want a professional opinion on the market value I'll pay the few hundred dollars for the appraisal. They have nothing to gain from deceiving me as they are paid regardless (even then all they do is compare to a few similar recent sales, something anyone can do online themselves today)

In my experience if the appraiser costs 3 figures, the lawyer costs 4 and the agent costs 5 figures. The lawyer is well worth the price and the appraisal is ok value depending on your value of time. The agents aren't worth 5 figures imo and would be replaced by an app if not for their protected information

Anyone dealing with any service rep at the mechanic (sales) or buying/selling anything would be wise to spend the few minutes online to inform themselves at least the basics (readily accessible online today) A good salesperson will extract more from those who didn't do their own due diligence. They must deceive someone to create value. A salesperson with any integrity would probably not last very long today. It’s capitalism, right?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

m3s said:


> If I'm buying a house I'll certainly take the time to learn the market myself. No RE agent knows what's best for me better than I do. If I'm selling a house and I want a professional opinion on the market value I'll pay the few hundred dollars for the appraisal. They have nothing to gain from deceiving me as they are paid regardless (even then all they do is compare to a few similar recent sales, something anyone can do online themselves today)
> 
> In my experience if the appraiser costs 3 figures, the lawyer costs 4 and the agent costs 5 figures. The lawyer is well worth the price and the appraisal is ok value depending on your value of time. The agents aren't worth 5 figures imo and would be replaced by an app if not for their protected information
> 
> Anyone dealing with any service rep at the mechanic (sales) or buying/selling anything would be wise to spend the few minutes online to inform themselves at least the basics (readily accessible online today) A good salesperson will extract more from those who didn't do their own due diligence. They must deceive someone to create value. A salesperson with any integrity would probably not last very long today. It’s capitalism, right?


I am beginning to wonder where you get your ideas from m3s. So you say you will learn the market. OK, let's suppose I give you that one. Now tell me how you will learn to SELL or BUY the house? One (market value) has nothing to do with the other (sales skills).

As for, "A good salesperson will extract more from those who didn't do their own due diligence. They must deceive someone to create value. A salesperson with any integrity would probably not last very long today. It’s capitalism, right?", WRONG. 

It's probably a waste of my time but I will try to show you why a professional salesperson can bring value to the transaction even when YOU THINK you know it all.

This is an exercise I used to use in seminars. A group of say a dozen people are split into two smaller groups of half a dozen each. Then they are all told that the purpose of the following exercise is to 'make as much money as possible.' 

I will offer ten dimes for sale to the two groups and each group can offer my a purchase price in turn. Each dime is worth 10 cents and all offers must be in amounts of 1 cent or more. In other words, no half, quarter, etc. cents can be offered. That's just to keep the math simple. I will offer the dime to one group first and then to the other group who can offer me more or pass. I will alternate which group I offer a dime to first, so both groups will have first right to make me an offer on 5 dimes each. Easy enough to understand so far?

OK, so before starting the two groups can take a few minutes to elect a spokesperson for their group and decide on a strategy. Once both groups indicate to me who their spokes person is, we are ready to begin.

Here's how it usually goes. First dime is offered for sale and group A offers 1 cent. Group B offers 2 cents. Group A offers 3 cents and so it goes till one or the other says Pass. The second dime is then offered first to group B who offers 1 cent. Group A offers 2 cents and on it goes till all 10 dimes have been purchased. It is then time to add up how many dimes each group got, their total value and the total they paid for them. The difference then shows us how much money they made.

The end result varies but as an example, let's say group A purchased 6 dimes for a total cost of 50 cents. They therefore made 10 cents profit. Group B purchased 4 dimes for a total cost 32 cents and so made 8 cents profit.

Now, which group realized the goal? A you say? Wrong. Neither group realized the goal. A made more profit than B but did not realize the goal. What was the goal again, " to make as much money as possible". 

So how much money was it possible for the two groups to make? Well, do the math. Ten dimes worth 10 cents each is a total of 100 cents. The minimum bid possible was 1 cent. Ten times 1 cent equals 10 cents total. So it was in fact possible for 90 cents to be made by the two teams. They made a total of 18 cents combined. Pretty poor performance in my opinion. 

So how then would it be possible for them to actually realize the goal and make 90 cents combined, rather than 'leaving money on the table' as they did? Because make no mistake, they DID leave money on the table. Both groups in fact LOST.

Here is what should have happened instead. Group A bids 1 cent on the first dime and group B immediately says 'pass'. That should signal to group A, that group B's intention is to engage in a 'win/win' relationship with them. On the second dime, group B bids 1 cent and group A immediately says 'pass'. From there on it is simple, each group gets 5 dimes for a payment of 1 cent each. Both groups then end up with a 45 cent profit for a combined total of the 90 cents that it was possible to make. 

That is how you 'make as much money as possible' m3s. NOT by 'deceiving someone' as you suggest and the professional salesperson with integrity knows that even though you don't. It is part of the professional salesperson's job to get you to see that and engage you in that kind of transaction, because quite frankly, the buyer/seller quite often does NOT 'know what best for them' as you suggest you do. Quite often, the professional salesperson does in fact know what's 'best for you better than you' think you do.

When I would do this exercise, I was very careful as to the exact words used. You will notice it is an 'exercise', not a contest. You make an 'offer' not a bid. You're given a goal to 'make as much as possible', not a goal to make more than the other guy. But of course the vast majority of people automatically go into the mind set of it being an ADVERSARIAL situation where someone must win and someone must lose.

The object of the exercise is to try and show people how having a win/win approach rather than a win/lose approach will in fact result in a better outcome for both parties. Now that is not 'protected information' m3s, it is information that is available to all, but the skills necessary for someone to get both sides to buy in to 'win/win' are not skills you are likely to find in either the average home buyer or home seller. They automatically think, 'win/lose' and act accordingly. The same applies to just about any buy/sell transaction.

So you may THINK you know all there is to know m3s but you do not. A professional salesperson will get you more than you could yourself if you are selling and at the same time have the buyer pay less than they could have negotiated for themselves, AT THE SAME TIME.

I am not and never have been a Real Estate Agent. But as a home buyer and seller, even I know it generally isn't difficult to determine a market value for a property. But that is only ONE criteria in the transaction. There is timing, there is financing, there is value in what is and is not included in the sale, etc. There are multiple factors, ALL of which have a value to the buyer or seller or both. That means a combination of factors are in play and that they can be used to increase the value to the buyer or the seller. It is the professional salesperson's job to work out the path that gets both parties the best deal for them.

You want say $500k to sell. I offer you $450k and you say no deal. You counter with $490k and your agent tells you to include an extra 30 days for closing as the agent knows I want more time to arrange finances. That extra 30 days has some VALUE to me but it may have little or no value to YOU. So I say no, but counter with $470K with an extra 30 days to close and if you will throw in the garden tractor because I don't have one and I know it will cost me $2k at least to buy a decent one. I also want you to leave all the existing furniture (thus saving me $20k in having to buy new furniture)

Now at this point, notice two things. My last offer at $470 plus 30 days, plus garden tractor, plus furniture in fact means my offer is actually now less than my first offer of $450k! in terms of value to me. But I am also indicating that I am willing to negotiate a solution that suits us both. You should be able to recognize that even if you don't see it as being an offer that suits you YET. Your agent if s/he is a PROFESSIONAL salesperson and not just a 'wannabe' sales agent, should be working to get you to recognize that.

So now you say, 'jeez this guy want everything except to pay me the $500k I want.' So with your agent's advice, you say no to the $470k +++ and you counter again. You counter with $475k plus a 10 day close (money comes to you sooner and therefore has some interest income value to you) and you will throw in the garden tractor but not the furniture if the buyer accepts that you will hold the mortgage yourself rather than the buyer going to a bank (that gets you income on the money obviously which has a value to you which could easily result in you actually ending up getting more than $500k for the sale of your house). 

I could go on m3s but I think the point should be clear by now. You may be used to 'here's an offer, here's a counter' take it or leave it. But if all it consists of is the purchase price and ignores all other areas of value in the transaction, it's a pretty poor way to negotiate something. And it invariably is all about 'win/lose' with both sides trying to get a 'better' deal than the other person. It takes a professional with the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to negotiate the 'best' deal for both parties.

NO App is going to do that for you m3s, no matter what information you have access to on the internet. If you can't understand that, all I can conclude is that you are truly naive.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

That was a long response. In short form it goes like this.

You m3s,like most people, seem to think in terms of win/lose in a buying/selling transaction. Whereas I AUTOMATICALLY start to think in terms of win/win. As soon as I start negotiating, I am thinking, 'what can I give you that you will value higher than I value it and what can I ask for that I will value higher than you value it?' That is how we can both get a deal that we see as the 'best' for each of us.

Now adding to that and shown in that is another aspect of sales skill to do with 'value added'. Those things of relatively high value to one party and at the same time relatively low value to the other party are where a professionals salesperson has the skill to 'add value' to the transaction.


There is a saying in sales that goes like this. 'The ultimate value added costs nothing, can't be repeated and lasts forever.' An example of that I can relate is about a company President I knew who would sometimes go out to visit clients with one of his salespeople. A not unusual courtesy call with no apparent purpose but to let the client meet the President and make him or her 'feel good'. Feel good does however have a value, it just isn't a monetary value. But this particular President would add more than just that. At the end of their meeting when saying goodbye, he would always take out a business card and write his home phone number on the back of it. Then he would hand it to the client while shaking his/her hand and say, 'I want you to know that if you ever have a problem that X (the salesperson standing beside him) can't handle for you, that I want you to phone me directly.' That's all he did but it isn't hard to see what kind of impact it would have on most people. 

Some will say, 'jeez, the guy must have been getting calls at 2am on a Sunday and stuff, no way I would do that if I were the President'. But in fact, he very rarely indeed got any calls at all. Why? Because the client would call the salesperson first and you can bet the salesperson knowing which side his bread was buttered on would move heaven and earth to satisfy that client before the client opted to call the BOSS. And note, that the President did tell the client 'IF the salesperson can't handle it for you.'

So the President added value that, cost nothing, can't be repeated and lasts forever. Find an App that can do that m3s.

Another example happened to me when I was visiting a client and trying to get a large order. As the meeting went on, it became very apparent to me that the client's focus was elsewhere. So I stopped and said, 'I can see that something else in on your mind right now. Can you tell me what it is.' We had an existing relationship that was quite good and so he told me. It was a time of rising interst rates and he needed to negotiate a new mortgage. He was having no luck finding a lender that would give him a rate he could afford to pay. He was in fact looking at the distinct possibility of losing his house!

As it happened, I had a friend who was in the private mortgage business. I asked to use the client's phone (before the days of cellphones) and made a call. Right there in the client's office, I spoke to my friend, vouched for the reliability and integrity of the client and passed the phone over to the client while I went out to get a cup of coffee and give him privacy. About 10 minutes later he came out and asked me back into his office. He was all smiles and said they had agreed to an interest rate he could live with and my friend was sending him the paperwork that afternoon by courier for him to go over and sign.

Then I asked him, 'So now can we talk about this order?' My bid was one of several and all of them were competitive. We got the order, surprise, surprise. That value added I brought to the table cost me nothing, could not be repeated (well not likely anyway) and lasted at least long enough to get me the order. 

The icing on the cake for me, was when after delivery of the order, the client phoned the President of our company and asked him if there would be any objection to his asking my wife and I out to dinner. He did not want it to be perceived as him perhaps trying to bribe me to give him preferential treatment etc. In fact, the client was just smart enough to figure out how to return the favour to me and make me look good with my boss. The President came to me and said something like, 'well that's a first. a client so happy with the salesperson that he wants to take you and your wife to dinner. Usually its the salesperson expensing a dinner with the client. What did you do to make him that happy.'

The client in fact did a value added to the transaction in my favour. Nice when that happens.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

So there’s 10 people who want to sell a dime and 3 grease balls convince them to let them control the sales for everyone’s benefit. They agree to sell for at least 13 cents and not to disclose immediately how many dimes are for sale in order to manipulate the public perception of supply vs demand. That way everyone wins and they “add value” because reasons that cannot be explained on google. They use some of their cents to lobby for job protection and somehow that they need to control this market for many foggy reasons that take long diatribes to explain.

In another arbitrary region far far away you can look up the instantaneous historical prices of a dime and the instantaneous number of them for sale. This facilitates an efficient market made possible by futuristic high speed network and computational devices. Now without the protected hidden information about the market people can buy and sell dimes directly with a much lower transaction cost of 0.1 cent/dime. Brokers still exist for those who don’t trust newfangled networks and computational devices, but their costs are still much lower thanks to the open market.




Longtimeago said:


> As it happened, I had a friend who was in the private mortgage business. I asked to use the client's phone (before the days of cellphones) and made a call. Right there in the client's office, I spoke to my friend, vouched for the reliability and integrity of the client and passed the phone over to the client while I went out to get a cup of coffee and give him privacy. About 10 minutes later he came out and asked me back into his office. He was all smiles and said they had agreed to an interest rate he could live with and my friend was sending him the paperwork that afternoon by courier for him to go over and sign.


So before the days of cellphones and internet sales people were required. Today I can google mortgage rates but unfortunately most of the best rates are still "protected" for mortgage brokers only. Mortgages are also made complicated by design when really computers can handle much more complicated transactions today. Imagine if the best stock prices were protected for stock brokers only? Fortunately we can all see the historical prices and availability of stocks thanks to the internet. Houses and mortgages are only different because the information is guarded for mystical long winded reasons.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

TJ01 said:


> I recently sold my Aunt's house for what I thought was a reasonably good deal. Now in emailing my agent after the transaction, I told him that maybe we could have gotten a bit more for it.
> 
> He linked me to other properties in the area and tried to convince me otherwise and I was adamant that we possibly could have squeezed a few more dollars out in the deal, but he stood firm and said it would have been unlikely.
> Basically two heads bumping at each other, one is right and so is the other.
> ...


Depending on the province there may be an issue, but your story is confusing.
If you sold the house and the transaction was over, ie ownership transfer is done, they can't just come back and say "yeah I changed my mind". 
If you were still in the offer negotiating phase, and they presented an offer, you said you'd like a bit more, but didn't actually accept and sign the offer, there is nothing wrong with them backing out.

Personally when I had an offer I didn't outright reject it, but I had my agent ask their agent if they'd sweeten it up a bit and he asked them. For him to be liable for any damage, you'd have to prove it's his fault. He could just say "my client told me the offer was a bit low and they were not fully satisfied with it, I advised the buyer that the offer was not satisfactory, at which point they walked away". That's a pretty reasonable action on his part.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> That was a long response. In short form it goes like this...


Ya think? Short form? I've never seen such a bad case of digital diarrhea. Sorry Long...TA but you lost me after the first few hundred words.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Ya think? Short form? I've never seen such a bad case of digital diarrhea. Sorry Long...TA but you lost me after the first few hundred words.


Funny. I was with him for both stories, perhaps because I had experienced similar situations. Demonstrating sensitivity to a recipient's mind-share has worked for me many times, even when I could not supply a solution. When we met later after the issue has been dealt with, the client was always appreciative and more receptive.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

Good realtors are def worth it, when purchasing our condo in a pre sale building we went in alone when I saw the sign on the street, saw a unit I liked, they gave me a price and pressured me to buy NOW, I told them to give me 5 mins, I called my realtor and told him about this, he came over right away he got me a better unit for 10k less, negotiated things like having both parking lots near the elevator and one beside the other which was not guaranteed at first nor I thought about that when I went it, it was also a north facing unit, which has great lighting. Was it worth it? of course it was.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Similar story here, my realtor arranged a good bidding war on my sale, and my other realtor got them to add several thousand in upgrades and add ons (it's easier to get a new build to "add thousands in value" than to drop their price. If you think about it, it makes sense for them to not drop below their asking price.)


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Obviously from my previous comments, I am in favour of using a good agent. I also acknowledge however that not all agents are created equal. I suppose many people who have not had just positive experiences that they can attribute specifically to having using a good agent, can be understood if they don't see the point.

For example, I know of a guy who is in a wheelchair but drives a car with hand controls. Nothing unusual in that. However, he bought a condo with underground parking, without finding out what parking space he would be allocated. When you have to get a wheelchair out of a car and yourself into it, you need a wider than average space obviously. 

Well, all the parking spaces were condo unit specific and his allocated space was a normal space which was not wide enough for him to be able to get into and out of his wheelchair. THAT is something that his agent should have picked up on even if the person himself didn't think about it. It was his first experience in buying a condo, his first experience in buying a home at all and his first experience in buying a parking space. The agent had no such excuse.

Fortunately, another resident who became aware of this problem and had an 'end' space allocated, offered to switch spaces. But to do so legally, involved some fancy law work to transfer the spaces and that had to be paid for.

Now consider the potential consequences of that story. If the guy had not got lucky with someone being willing to switch spaces provided he paid for the paperwork, he would have had a serious problem. He could have been left with no alternative but to resell the condo as he would have been literally unable to move into it.

And no, there is no App for that. I find it pretty naive that anyone would think they can do away with an agent and replace it with an App. It's not like you are buying a TV which comes out of a box and that's it, you plug it in. There can be all kinds of factors that go into the buying or selling of a property and just like being able to buy a car doesn't mean you are capable of repairing one, being able to buy or sell a property doesn't mean you are capable of getting it all right by yourself.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> Now consider the potential consequences of that story. If the guy had not got lucky with someone being willing to switch spaces provided he paid for the paperwork, he would have had a serious problem. He could have been left with no alternative but to resell the condo as he would have been literally unable to move into it.


Our condo offer to purchase did not include the parking level arrangement until I insisted on it. We now have the exact location of our space and where our bodega is located. Our agent who is well regarded was surprised that no other buyers had insisted on it!

(Just checked and the assigned space is wheel chair friendly.)


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> Our condo offer to purchase did not include the parking level arrangement until I insisted on it. We now have the exact location of our space and where our bodega is located. Our agent who is well regarded was surprised that no other buyers had insisted on it!
> 
> (Just checked and the assigned space is wheel chair friendly.)


You would think that someone who uses a wheelchair would have thought to ask about it and that an agent who represents that person would have thought to ask about it, but obviously neither did in this case. Assumption has a nasty way of coming back to bite you in the butt.

It really was quite a situation to deal with. I was President of the Condo Board at the time and became involved because of that. Not only were spaces legally tied to a specific condo unit, the condominium corporation had to agree to a change being made. The two unit owners could not just agree to exchange with each other. The legal contortions that had to be dealt with were significant and it cost the new owner thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees since obviously he had to pay for it being changed. He had to pay for his own lawyer, the other owner's lawyer and the condominium corporation's lawyer.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I've had positive experiences with agents I just acknowledge the reality that they are making off with 5 large figures that could easily be kept between the buyer/seller. If your justification is negotiating a better parking space that's like paying the price of a vehicle itself for a closer parking space. Insanity. Writing up an offer isn't that complicated, it's a fill in the blank form. The lawyer does the real paperwork.

I guess people just don't realize what's really going on. The agents prefer to deal with other agents to collude and protect each other. Key information and deals are protected for other agents. They avoid low-commission or commission-free listings like the plague. The first house I bought was actually a commission-free listing and it was obviously a better deal than houses my agent was showing me until I pointed this one out.

I've bought/sold a few houses and I am always very limited on time, in a second/foreign language, unfamiliar area and usually not even present for the entire transaction. For those reasons and other my work refunds a set commission (and I often raise the commission out of pocket because I understand that agents prioritize higher commissions) My last agent was impressed with my scotch collection so I proposed he could chose one if the house sells before I have to store them.

My organization moves a lot of people and the agents make a lot of quick easy money off us. A lot of the highly recommended ones are spouses of colleagues or ex-colleagues who saw the gravy train and I hear all about the ins and outs from them. Most of the agents that target us give large gifts and referral bonuses to keep their network flowing. Kickbacks like this are highly unethical in my opinion but it's just another way they butter people up

I definitely need agents in my case but I can see what they're doing and I definitely don't rely on them to make decisions for me and keep my actual bottom prices guarded. I've had agents slip key information about prices to me that the other party probably expected was confidential. They do this all the time to grease the skids. That speeds up the sale in the interest of the agents but not the person who shared their cards.

I've worked much bigger projects/purchases/contracts at work and it's far more professional than what I see in the RE market. A lot of younger people see this as well as they can barely afford houses they are researching and finding the commission-free options. The main obstacle to those new options is that the boomers who own most of the RE aren't so concerned about money and prefer to use agents they are used to.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> The legal contortions that had to be dealt with were significant and it cost the new owner thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees since obviously he had to pay for it being changed. He had to pay for his own lawyer, the other owner's lawyer and the condominium corporation's lawyer.


It seems to me that if everyone agrees to the change, paying the condo corp lawyer to do it would suffice. Opposing lawyers are always a good idea when there is opposition.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> It seems to me that if everyone agrees to the change, paying the condo corp lawyer to do it would suffice. Opposing lawyers are always a good idea when there is opposition.


Yes that would seem to make sense kcowan but in reality, most people want to have their own lawyer go over a contract. While the condo corp lawyer could act in the best interest of all parties, it's a question of whether all parties would PERCEIVE that lawyer as acting in their best interest. Unfortunately, the days of when people were willing to make a deal on a 'handshake' are long gone. Lawyers are very happy that those days are gone.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The lawyers do gain a lot from lack of trust. More reason to negotiate without them. They are not experts.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The app costs 4 figures instead of 5. With that much money on the line expect more manipulation from the current cartel


----------

