But I do agree with the point you just made. If you don’t want to treat a buyer that signs an agency agreement the same as one that doesn’t, you probably should not be servicing the one that doesn’t. That’s the agent’s choice in that situation. If you don’t trust your client, send them elsewhere.

Didn’t mean to jump on you, I jumped on “it”, a statement I have heard all too many times. Glad it was a misunderstanding.

If I did not have a listing with the seller, I would be the one without a choice–the buyer would be my client.

Sorry about the ambiguity.

You said “In the context of my showing a potential buyer a listing I am not their agent unless I already have a buyers agency agreement signed with them.”

Based on your response, you must have meant to say “my listing” or “a listing of mine” and not “a listing”. I read that to mean any listing of any agent.

The sentence regarding the pre-existing contract shoudl appear right after paragraph (c) from the statute.

Neither the pamphlet nor the “law” does not say what you claim. It says:

“A licensee who performs real estate brokerage services for a buyer is a buyer’s agent unless the:

(a) Licensee has entered into a written agency agreement with the seller, in which case the licensee is a seller’s agent;”

Thus, if you have a listing agreement with the seller, you do not represent the buyer.

The exception is:

“(c) Licensee has entered into a written agency agreement with both parties, in which case the licensee is a dual agent.”

This is very basic stuff. I don’t know how you could have misinterpreted it so badly.

There are dire consequences for this type of mistake. If you wrongly state you represent the buyer and seller, when you only represent the seller an attorney would rip you up in court. He/she would ask: “Which were you doing? Representing your client as you should have been, or as you claimed on your disclosure?” Whichever way you answer the buyer and seller would have a valid claim against you.

This would be where you had a pre-existing written agency agreement with the buyer.

Look at either RCW 18.86.020 or the agency pamphlet itself.

This is very basic stuff.

Clearly the buyer gets to choose their type of representation, and then you can decide whether or not you will offer them the type they have chosen. Then they choose whether or not they want you or their agency type of choice. It’s time for the industry to stop being “in charge” of what people can and cannot choose.

As to sellers, they want you to sell their house primarily, in my experience, and have never had one object to my doing so.

As to your not representing a buyer unless they sign a buyer agency agreement, read the agency pamphlet. The law says you DO represent them without an agency agreement. How do you reconcile NOT representing a buyer unless…when the law says that you do?

I have never understood this about agents in Washington. We have the best law in the land, and agents ignore it and impose their own feelings and interpretation. One of the very first statements in the agency pamplet is that ALL agents represent buyers, unless they are the agent for the seller. How can that possibly be misinterpreted to the degree that it seems to be?

And I really disagree with this. It is a disclosure. The buyer cannot force me to represent them. The buyer cannot force my seller client to accept a dual agency.

I’d disagree. In the context of my showing a potential buyer a listing I am not their agent unless I already have a buyers agency agreement signed with them. They do not get to choose. Their only choice is to make an offer through me and not be represented, or to go to some other agent to make the offer (perhaps one I’d refer) and be represented.

And again, I cannot see a situation where I’d go to an existing listing client and tell them: “There’s a buyer for your property and they want me to create a dual agency.” If it doesn’t already exist at the time I show the house, it’s not going to be created afterward. That would not be representing my existing client.