I can tell you that around the Country agents are, and have been, putting “SOC to be reduced to X if agent who writes offer did not show the property.”

That has nothing to do with Redfin by the way, though it would affect them. This “new thing” started both before Redfin and in areas where they don’t have Redfin.

Agents trying to simply “writing things up” and cashback to the buyer, that they didn’t show, started long before Redfin came into being. I wonder of NWMLS allows this type of wording? Anyone know?

The ethics of the mls system may soon be forgotten, but clearly not “a rhetorical question” as if there is no answer.

No answer? You would write that one up? Someone’s turning in their grave then.

BTW, John L. Scott died a long time ago.

Love your phrase “the grand MLS ethics”

Ben, you are an agent with John L. Scott.

Go ask your broker what you should do if a buyer calls you and says “I’m looking for an agent to write up a property I saw three times with an agent who I’ve been working with for a year and I want to pay you 1% and keep 2%…OK? Ask your broker what “the grand MLS ethics” is of kicking a peer to the curb, and the potential consequence of that action.

I am very, VERY sure your Broker knows the answer. John L. Scott is one of THE MOST ethical Brokerages in town. If your Office Manager or Broker doesn’t know, give John L. Scott a call. HE DEFINITELY knows “the grand MLS ethics” in fact…I think he invented them

They can make it into a discount broker issue easily, but it isn’t. It’s about the basic rules of membership that are broken by the Redfin model.

Then, again, maybe not. The following is an excerpt from WARs Legal Hotline (it’s longer w/more disclaimers):
“The procuring cause doctrine, as instituted by the NAR and the WAR is as follows.

The determination of whether the activity of a broker is the procuring cause of a sale is generally a question of fact. Broker’s efforts must set in motion a series of events which, without a break in continuity, eventually culminate in the sale. Prior case law shows that it takes more than just showing a property to a prospective buyer or providing the buyer with information about the property. Even if a licensee wants to be and tries to be instrumental in the sale of the property, he will not be considered the procuring cause unless there is a clear connection between the licensee’s action and the ultimate sale.”

For example “agent #1 shows the property to the buyer. Then agent #2 shows the buyer the property again, drafts the offer for the buyer and offers assistance throughout the purchase process. Although agent #1 may have initially set the process in motion, agent #1’s activities were not continuous and were interrupted by the activities of agent #2. Agent #2’s activities eventually result in the culmination of the sale. Therefore, agent #2 is the procuring cause.”

The only difference I see between the above example and Redfin, is in the above example, agent #2 (aka Redfin) shows the property again. Even if this event (2nd showing) doesn’t take place, I suspect agent #2 will still be procuring cause. Of course, I make no representation to know or interpret the law. : )

P.S. If Redfin now shows property…someone tell me. Last I heard they did not. They used another agent to show property and then took that agent’s piece of the pie and gave it to the buyer.

Per the WAR attorney, it never was the 1st agent’s pie to begin with.

BTW where exactly this is grand MLS membership ethics you’re referring to and what exact rules are Redfin is breaking? And, if they were afoul, I’m sure the NWMLS would have stepped in.

1) I figured you’d be coming in that direction, so I wrote a new post on that topic. See my newest post that I was writing as you were writing this comment. I don’t use contracts to protect myself against…because the “side effects” in downside risk from the client’s perspective, outweigh the benefits to me personally. If that makes me a “dumbass”…so be it.

2) In the “new construction” scenario, anyone at the new construction site, must, by definition, be an agent for the seller. In the “Redfin” model, since the buyer is going “out into the world” to find property, Redfin simply needs a one line question “How and with whom did you see the property you want us to ‘write up’?” As long as they have that one line, and the answer is the Listing AGENT, not the Listing COMPANY, they will have covered their bases. I don’t think that line is on the questionnaire, but maybe it is. I await being enlightened on that point and hope they do ask that question. If the potential Redfin client puts any name on that line other than THE one and only listing agent, or has no such question for the buyer to answer, then the sceanrios are not comparable.

The buyer is always entitled, under agency law, to NOT be forced to deal with the agent for the seller, that being the in house builder’s sales rep or the individual listing agent.