suspicious selling agent behavoir ...

What is the name of your state?
California.

First time buyer. Starts with limited knowledge of real estate; depends on agent. His agent tells him purchase agreements, once entered, can be exitted for any reason whatsoever during the contingency period. Agent convinces buyer to enter purchase agreement on condo that's okay, but not great; encouraged to look and bid on other houses in the meantime. Fine print of contract drawn up by agent not at all favorable to buyer; he signs carelessly.

Buyer realizes mistake within a couple days, realizes for first time the bind this puts seller in. Upon receiving disclosures, searches frantically for reason to get out of contract. Finds one - of a sort. Agent manages to get him out of contract, with no loss (seller lets
him out, no doubt unhappy). Buyer will get another agent, but wonders if any actions can, or should be taken against this one, for the purpose of protecting both future buyers and sellers from him.

Questions:
1) Obviously, the buyer is ultimately responsible for what he signs - but can the misleading or dishonest advice of his agent be used to get out of a contract? Is "naivete'" ever a legitimate
argument to get out of an ill-advised contract?

2) At what point does bad advice from an agent of questionable ethics cross the line from being ill-advised to illegal?
(Particularly when it comes to fulfilling contract contingencies - if a buyer continues to sincerely ask his agent what his responsibilities are, and the agent consistently gives incorrect or unethical advice, who is responsible?)

Thank you

[JETX]

WAY too long!!! Thought you were writing a novel.
Delete all the extra 'chaff' and try again.

[HomeGuru]

[quote]Originally posted by uffengloopy
[b]What is the name of your state?
California.

First time buyer. Starts with limited knowledge of real estate; depends on agent. His agent tells him purchase agreements, once entered, can be exitted for any reason whatsoever during the contingency period. Agent convinces buyer to enter purchase agreement on condo that's okay, but not great; encouraged to look and bid on other houses in the meantime. Fine print of contract drawn up by agent not at all favorable to buyer; he signs carelessly.

Buyer realizes mistake within a couple days, realizes for first time the bind this puts seller in. Upon receiving disclosures, searches frantically for reason to get out of contract. Finds one - of a sort. Agent manages to get him out of contract, with no loss (seller lets
him out, no doubt unhappy). Buyer will get another agent, but wonders if any actions can, or should be taken against this one, for the purpose of protecting both future buyers and sellers from him.

**A: yes, so file a complaint with the appropriate parties.

[JETX]

First, thank you for 'shortening' the novel.

"Obviously, the buyer is ultimately responsible for what he signs - but can the misleading or dishonest advice of his agent be used to get out of a contract?"
*** No. A purchase contract is ONLY between the parties involved and the action (or inaction) of a 3rd party cannot be used to terminate the contract.

"Is "naivete'" ever a legitimate
argument to get out of an ill-advised contract?"
*** No. Ignorance and stupidity by a party is NOT sufficient.... unless the person is found to be 'not competent' by a court which could order the contract voided.

"At what point does bad advice from an agent of questionable ethics cross the line from being ill-advised to illegal?"
*** There is not a clear-cut defined line there. In order to determine whether the agent was at fault would require a complete review of the agents conduct and actions (usually by the licensing agency or court).

"Particularly when it comes to fulfilling contract contingencies - if a buyer continues to sincerely ask his agent what his responsibilities are, and the agent consistently gives incorrect or unethical advice, who is responsible?"
*** Depending on the specifics, the agent COULD be responsible for his/her actions. However, in the case you gave, it would be clear to any reasonable person that if an agent (or anyone else) tells you to 'ignore the written agreement' as happened here, the reasonable action would be to ignore that advice and get a 'qualified' opinion by an attorney or other agent. You can't be so naive as to be ignore obvious errors and rely on a court or others to undo your 'failure to understand'.

[HomeGuru]

Additionally, there are real estate licensing laws and regulations and Realtor standards of practice and code of ethics. Use those as guidelines to see if your agent is guilty of wrong doing. I noted 7 violations already.

<<quote>>
*** Depending on the specifics, the agent COULD be responsible for his/her actions. However, in the case you gave, it would be clear to any reasonable person that if an agent (or anyone else) tells you to 'ignore the written agreement' as happened here, the reasonable action would be to ignore that advice and get a 'qualified' opinion by an attorney or other agent. You can't be so naive as to be ignore obvious errors and rely on a court or others to undo your 'failure to understand'.
<<unquote>>
He didn't say "ignore the written agreement", but rather he
explained the meaning of terms in the
document deceptively ... I think. I'm still not sure.

More specifically, he said the "property
condition" contingency meant I could get out of the contract if I found anything that I did no like with the condo, no matter how trivial. I don't believe this now, but if I look at the contract logically, and trusted his advice, that's what it appeared to mean. It was only when I sought another opinion that I doubted it. I terminated the contract within 3 days of acceptance; it wasn't like I was sitting on it, and I got my money back. But I suspect there was no guarantee that the seller would've agreed.

[HomeGuru]

Then I consider this case closed.