The National Association of Realtors® Professional Standards Committee has developed interpretations of the Code of Ethics to help Realtors® understand the ethical obligations created by the Code. The case interpretations are hypothetical allegations of unethical conduct by a Realtor®. Each case interpretation reviews the facts presented by the parties and provides a rationale for the decision for application in the real world. However, these case interpretations do not represent binding precedent, and each actual complaint is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Case #1-29: Multiple Offers to be Presented Objectively
(Adopted November, 2002)
Realtor® A listed Seller S’s house. He filed the listing with the MLS and conducted advertising intended to interest prospective purchasers. Seller S’s house was priced reasonably and attracted the attention of several potential purchasers.

Buyer B learned about Seller S’s property from Realtor® A’s website, called Realtor® A for information, and was shown the property by Realtor® A several times.

Buyer X, looking for property in the area, engaged the services of Realtor® R as a buyer representative. Seller S’s property was one of several Realtor® R introduced to Buyer X.

After the third showing, Buyer B was ready to make an offer and requested Realtor® A’s assistance in writing a purchase offer. Realtor® A helped Buyer B prepare an offer and then called Seller S to make an appointment to present the offer that evening.

Later that same afternoon, Realtor® R called Realtor® A and told him that he was bringing a purchase offer to Realtor® A’s office for Realtor® A to present to Seller S. Realtor® A responded that he would present Buyer X’s offer that evening.

That evening, Realtor® A presented both offers to Seller S for his consideration. Seller S noted that both offers were for the full price and there seemed to be little difference between them. Realtor® A responded, “I’m not telling you what to do, but you might consider that I have carefully pre-qualified Buyer B. There’s no question but that she’ll get the mortgage she’ll need to buy your house. Frankly, I don’t know what, if anything, Realtor® R has done to pre-qualify his client. I hope he’ll be able to get a mortgage, but you never can tell.” Realtor® A added, “Things can get complicated when a buyer representative gets involved. They make all sorts of demands for their clients and closings can be delayed. You don’t want that, do you? Things are almost always simpler when I sell my own listings,” he concluded.

Seller S, agreeing with Realtor® A’s reasoning, accepted Buyer B’s offer and the transaction closed shortly thereafter.

Upset that his purchase offer hadn’t been accepted, Buyer X called Seller S directly and asked, “Just to satisfy my curiosity, why didn’t you accept my full price offer to buy your house?” Seller S explained that he had accepted another full price offer, had been concerned about Buyer X being able to obtain the necessary financing, and had been concerned about delays in closing if a buyer representative were involved in the transaction.

Buyer X shared Seller S’s comments with Realtor® R the next day. Realtor® R, in turn, filed an ethics complaint alleging that Realtor® A’s comments had intentionally cast Buyer X’s offer in an unflattering light, that his comments about buyer representatives hindering the closing process had been inaccurate and unfounded, and that Realtor® A’s presentation of the offer had been subjective and biased and in violation of Article 1 as interpreted by Standard of Practice 1-6.

At the hearing, Realtor® A tried to justify his comments, noting that although he had no personal knowledge of Buyer X’s financial wherewithal and while he hadn’t had a bad experience dealing with represented buyers, it was conceivable that an overzealous buyer representative could raise obstacles that might delay a closing. In response to Realtor® R’s questions, Realtor® A acknowledged that his comments to Seller S about Buyer X’s ability to obtain financing and the delays that might ensue if a buyer representative were involved were essentially speculation and not based on fact.

The Hearing Panel concluded that Realtor® A’s comments and overall presentation had not been objective as required by Standard of Practice 1-6 and found Realtor® A in violation of Article 1.

Source: National Association of Realtors®