You're mistaking legality with ethics. The assignment clause makes it legal, but that doesn't mean that the brokers are acting ethically.
Ethics revolves around ensuring that everybody's interests are protected. A broker is supposed to be a neutral party that does not have an interest in the transaction. The seller's interests are not being represented.
The real estate agents are clearly violating their fiduciary duty to all non-agent parties involved in the transaction by misrepresenting the market value of the property.
The average property owner doesn't understand the market and is expecting the real estate agent to provide accurate price estimations.
I don't understand, ethically, how this sort of thing could be legal as its clearly a clause meant to allow misrepresentation to take rubes for their money.
I feel like there is a lot of opportunity for the agent to act like they are working for the seller while not informing them fully of their knowledge of the market.
If they are acting like an adviser, there's something at least a bit smarmy about not actually advising. If they were simply interested buyers, its harder to impute an obligation to the seller.
vinceguidry|10 years ago
Ethics revolves around ensuring that everybody's interests are protected. A broker is supposed to be a neutral party that does not have an interest in the transaction. The seller's interests are not being represented.
fweespeech|10 years ago
The average property owner doesn't understand the market and is expecting the real estate agent to provide accurate price estimations.
I don't understand, ethically, how this sort of thing could be legal as its clearly a clause meant to allow misrepresentation to take rubes for their money.
maxerickson|10 years ago
If they are acting like an adviser, there's something at least a bit smarmy about not actually advising. If they were simply interested buyers, its harder to impute an obligation to the seller.