What is the name of your state? KS
Agent received two different offers on their listing. Presented both offers to Seller. Seller rejected one, and accepted(signed) the other, with no written contingencies, and gave them both back to agent. Agent called the rejected offer's agent and told them "they rejected your offer, and accepted another one." Less than 24 hours later, the rejected offer submitted another offer that was 10k more than the accepted offer, even after they were advised that the Seller accepted another offer, even as a back-up.
Seller was upset because he wanted the higher offer and the Broker advised him that he had signed(accepted) the other offer and if wanted to breach the contract he must contact an attorney. The Seller closed the transaction with the contract that he signed and refused to pay the Brokerage a commission. He told the Broker that the agent nor the Brokerage was looking out for his best interest.
Brokerage sued Seller for Commission. Jury trial. Case # 2004 CV 338, Eighteenth Judicial District, Sedgwick County, Kansas.
Sellers claimed, he "orally" told the agent to HOLD the signed contract and try to get more money from the offer that he rejected(signed rejected, and initialed). Additionally, since the agent did not inform the Buyer that the Sellers had accepted their offer, that the contract was not inforceable, and they could accept the other/higher offer.
Brokerage claimed, since they were the only agent (designated seller's agent) on both sides of the transaction, once the seller handed the agent the contract, with no contingencies, the Sellers accepted the Buyers offer and the Contract was binding, and since he handed the contract back to the agent, the "conveyance/buyer notification" was met.
Also, Brokerage claimed that the Seller did not give the agent any instructions, verbal or written, to hold the contract. Brokerage claimed if Seller wanted more money, why didn't he counteroffer instead of reject. Because the Sellers rejected the other offer, the Brokerage claimed that the agent did not have the duty to seek a better offer.
Brokerage claimed even though they represented the Seller's, and not the Buyer's, the Brokerage still had a duty of "Honesty" to the Buyers and would not "rip up" the contract, because the Seller told them to.
Additionally, the Sellers personally(face to face) informed the Buyers that they were going to accept their offer and instructed the agent to get it done.
Kansas does not have any legislative real estate law on Contract "conveyance". I've been all over it. Kansas law only states:
**
K.S.A. 58-3062(12) Fail to see that financial obligations and commitments between the parties to an agreement to sell, exchange or lease real estate are in writing, expressing the exact agreement of the parties or to provide, within a reasonable time, copies thereof to all parties involved.
**
PATTERN INSTRUCTIONS KANSAS - (JURY INSTRUCTIONS)
INSTRUCTION NO. 7 SUBMITTED BY SELLER'S ATTORNEY'S, GIVEN BY JUDGE TO JURY. EVEN THOUGH PARAGRAPHS WERE DELETED THAT CONTAINED IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
VERDICT!!!
Jury said that agent/brokerage breached their fidicuary duty to their client because the Seller's best interest was not fulfilled.
Jury said that Sellers should of been able to accept higher offer.
Jury award Sellers the commission of $8,100.00.
Jury awards Seller damages of $10,000 because they should to been able to accept the higher offer.
Brokerage wants to appeal. Court wants appeal bond of $12,000. Brokerage is too small and can't afford to appeal. Brokerage pays damages, commission in escrow - seller receives judgement to obtain commission.
Email me at [email protected] for ftp instructions to see the jury instructions from the judge.
Agent received two different offers on their listing. Presented both offers to Seller. Seller rejected one, and accepted(signed) the other, with no written contingencies, and gave them both back to agent. Agent called the rejected offer's agent and told them "they rejected your offer, and accepted another one." Less than 24 hours later, the rejected offer submitted another offer that was 10k more than the accepted offer, even after they were advised that the Seller accepted another offer, even as a back-up.
Seller was upset because he wanted the higher offer and the Broker advised him that he had signed(accepted) the other offer and if wanted to breach the contract he must contact an attorney. The Seller closed the transaction with the contract that he signed and refused to pay the Brokerage a commission. He told the Broker that the agent nor the Brokerage was looking out for his best interest.
Brokerage sued Seller for Commission. Jury trial. Case # 2004 CV 338, Eighteenth Judicial District, Sedgwick County, Kansas.
Sellers claimed, he "orally" told the agent to HOLD the signed contract and try to get more money from the offer that he rejected(signed rejected, and initialed). Additionally, since the agent did not inform the Buyer that the Sellers had accepted their offer, that the contract was not inforceable, and they could accept the other/higher offer.
Brokerage claimed, since they were the only agent (designated seller's agent) on both sides of the transaction, once the seller handed the agent the contract, with no contingencies, the Sellers accepted the Buyers offer and the Contract was binding, and since he handed the contract back to the agent, the "conveyance/buyer notification" was met.
Also, Brokerage claimed that the Seller did not give the agent any instructions, verbal or written, to hold the contract. Brokerage claimed if Seller wanted more money, why didn't he counteroffer instead of reject. Because the Sellers rejected the other offer, the Brokerage claimed that the agent did not have the duty to seek a better offer.
Brokerage claimed even though they represented the Seller's, and not the Buyer's, the Brokerage still had a duty of "Honesty" to the Buyers and would not "rip up" the contract, because the Seller told them to.
Additionally, the Sellers personally(face to face) informed the Buyers that they were going to accept their offer and instructed the agent to get it done.
Kansas does not have any legislative real estate law on Contract "conveyance". I've been all over it. Kansas law only states:
**
K.S.A. 58-3062(12) Fail to see that financial obligations and commitments between the parties to an agreement to sell, exchange or lease real estate are in writing, expressing the exact agreement of the parties or to provide, within a reasonable time, copies thereof to all parties involved.
**
PATTERN INSTRUCTIONS KANSAS - (JURY INSTRUCTIONS)
INSTRUCTION NO. 7 SUBMITTED BY SELLER'S ATTORNEY'S, GIVEN BY JUDGE TO JURY. EVEN THOUGH PARAGRAPHS WERE DELETED THAT CONTAINED IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
VERDICT!!!
Jury said that agent/brokerage breached their fidicuary duty to their client because the Seller's best interest was not fulfilled.
Jury said that Sellers should of been able to accept higher offer.
Jury award Sellers the commission of $8,100.00.
Jury awards Seller damages of $10,000 because they should to been able to accept the higher offer.
Brokerage wants to appeal. Court wants appeal bond of $12,000. Brokerage is too small and can't afford to appeal. Brokerage pays damages, commission in escrow - seller receives judgement to obtain commission.
Email me at [email protected] for ftp instructions to see the jury instructions from the judge.