Perils of Dual Agency
Perils of Dual Agency
By Bryan Mashian
California real estate brokers are permitted to serve simultaneously “two masters” if the dual agency arrangement is disclosed to and approved by both parties to the transaction. Some agents will readily jump at the opportunity to make a larger commission, even though the extra compensation comes with conflict of interests and risks.
Some buyers, to gain a competitive edge, agree to have the listing broker represent them as well as the seller. These buyers believe that by allowing the listing broker to “double end” the deal, they will gain favorable treatment from the listing broker. Also, savvy sellers negotiate that if one broker represents both sides of the deal, then seller will pay a lesser commission (for example, 4%) than when each side has a broker and the two brokers share the commission (such as 6%). So, a seller may save money and be financially incentivized to agree to a dual agency.
The parties may not appreciate that a dual agency transaction always involves a conflict of interest. The dual agent has the fiduciary duty of utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty in dealings with both sides of the transaction. The broker will, for example, learn material facts that might affect one principal’s decision, and may have to disclose those facts to the other party.
This obligation is at odds with representing both sides. The broker cannot fully advocate the interests of one party at the peril of breaching the duties owed to the other side, or blowing the deal altogether and not making a commission at all. Sometimes, neither principal will receive the benefits they otherwise would have obtained by each being represented by a separate agent.
The dual agent may not, without express permission, disclose that the seller will accept a price less than the listing price or that the buyer will pay a price greater than the price offered. When one broker represents both the buyer and the seller, neither party may ever be comfortable that the broker was ever fully in their corner.
A single agent’s knowledge of price, terms, motivation, and other personal information of both principals is completely contradictory to the broker’s fiduciary duties owed to both principals. This situation creates the risk that the rights of one of the principals will be sacrificed to promote the interests of the other.
Besides advice regarding price and terms, an agent who represents both principals has other conflicts. This agent is legally required to make a full and complete disclosure of all material facts to both parties regarding any matter that would affect either principal’s decision to buy or sell.
For example, if a physical inspection reveals some serious latent defect with the property, the buyer will demand concessions from the seller, such as a price reduction. The seller naturally will question the validity of the inspection and may even want to move on to another competing buyer. There are scores of other similar problematic scenarios in a dual agency relationship which are difficult to resolve.
The law attempts to reconcile this conflict by requiring disclosure and consent, but the result is still necessarily problematic. In handling the negotiations between the adverse principals, a dual agent who satisfies the fiduciary duties to one party will likely breach fiduciary duties to the other party.
The disclosure of dual agency is significant enough that an undisclosed dual agent cannot recover any compensation. A principal who did not know and consent to the dual agency can rescind the transaction. The principal has the right of rescission whether or not the agent acted in good faith, committed no actual fraud, and caused no actual damage to the principal.
The principals must knowingly consent to the dual agency. A casual disclosure of the dual agency may not be sufficient without an explanation of the adverse ramifications that may follow if the principal does not receive the undivided loyalty and the best advice from the agent. For example, the agent should explain how the usual fiduciary duties are limited by the dual agency.
Before entering into a dual agency, real estate agents and the principals should give serious thought to all potential consequences that flow from this relationship. It is important for the agent to get an informed written consent from all parties prior to the starting the dual representation.
- Duration of Seller Warranties 4 Sep 2015
- Assume Loan or Take Subject To? 15 Jun 2015
- Cotenancy Breach Remedies 2 Apr 2015
- Finder – a precarious status 1 Dec 2014
- Commercial Brokers Must Disclose Agency 1 Sep 2014
- Risks of circumventing the safety clause 1 Aug 2014
- Making Enduring Sublease Deals 1 Jul 2014
- Emails May Create Deals – Unsuspectingly 24 Jun 2014
- Unintended Dual Agency 24 May 2014
- Perils of Dual Agency 23 Apr 2014
- Impact of CAM Estimates in LOIs 23 Feb 2014
- Liquidated Damages in a Rising Market 14 Jan 2014
- Limits of Profit Sharing in Leases 14 Dec 2013
- “Or nominee” and Its Problems 14 Nov 2013
- New Energy Use Disclosure Laws 14 Jul 2013
- New ADA Laws Could Provide Relief 14 Jun 2013
- Option to Extend May be a Mirage 14 May 2013
- Right of First Refusal and Broker’s Commission 14 Apr 2013
- Is broker paid after listing expires? 14 Mar 2013
- Seven Steps to Expedite Sales 14 Feb 2013
- Navigating CAM Expenses 14 Jan 2013
- Indirect Control of Lease Transfers 14 Dec 2012
- Impact of Foreclosure on Security Deposits 14 Nov 2012
- Negotiating Exclusive Uses 14 Oct 2012
- Build-Outs Made Easy 14 Sep 2012
- Profit Sharing In Leases 14 Aug 2012
- Recapture Rights In Leases 14 Jun 2012
- Structuring Lease Terminations 14 Apr 2012
- Owners Should Control Environmental Audit 14 Jan 2012
- Protecting Against Specific Performance Lawsuits 14 Dec 2011
- Impact of Foreclosure on Leases 14 Nov 2011
- Seller Can’t Hide Behind An “As-Is” Clause 14 Oct 2011
- Achieving Flexibility in Leases 14 Aug 2011