Jump to content

Government to control private negotiations ?


Recommended Posts

I saw the following on the web site of an Ohio inspector:

The Inspection addendum forms used by most Realtors in Ohio limit what you as a buyer can ask the seller to repair or replace. The standard form states that you can only ask that the Seller repair or replace any item that is defective or relates to safety or habitability.

I would like to ask any of our Ohio brothers if this true?

In Michigan, if I am buying a house and insist that the living room be painted blue, the seller has two choices, paint the living blue and negotiate who pays, or tell me to take a hike.

I then have two choices, take that hike, or drop the demand.

I would like to ask everybody else, why would the State of Ohio inject itself into such matters?

Does anybody smell realtor and attorney here? Realtors want to limit negotiation and lawyers want to fight over the definition of the word habitability. Why would people living in America tolorate such nonsence from their state government?

Michigan once had to go to war with Ohio to force them to take Toledo. Seems that after swallowing that bitter pill, they can swallow just about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Scott, it's gotta be something in the contract, not a law. The realtors around here mostly use the contract cooked up by the local association, which has a paragraph talking about what does and does not have to be fixed. Few buyers realize they can't walk away if the seller agrees to fix what the paragraph calls for, and it has caused some real stinks.

Brian G.

I Love the Smell of a Realtor Lawsuit in the Morning [^]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah,

I agree. In the contracts.

Around here they have Option A and Option B. Under option A, the buyer can walk if the inspection is "unsatisfactory" for any reason to the buyer.

Under option B, if the seller agrees to fix everything the buyer is on the hook whether he/she has changed his/her mind or not.

I've also seen it where they've added a clause like you describe, wherein the buyer agrees that the seller doesn't have any obligation to fix anything that isn't a habitability or safety issue.

I always know which ones those are when the client or the client's realtor will ask me to make sure I include anything that can be safety or habitability related in the report, no matter how small.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sort of thing is going to be getting more airtime in the near future.

The inspection business is now mainstream, and it has a strong effect on the real estate transaction, as it should.

The real estate industry (it's not a profession) historically has taken immediate & powerful steps to squash anything that effects or alters control of the transaction by the realtors. The track record is pretty much 100% success in keeping any intelligent consumer business practice out of the process. The real estate industry is not about buying; it's about selling.

Now we're in the game as advocates for buyers; that's a bad thing for the real estate industry, a good thing for consumers. Real estater's will be pushing this sort of crap harder & harder as buyer's find their voice in the transaction.

Look for more limitations on what we're allowed to say, or how we say it.

It's showdown time folks; the Justice Dept. has the NAR in Federal Court right now, right here in Chicago. It's the first salvo for breaking up the hegemony of realtors. Realtors aren't going to take it lightly; it's a $65 billion commission industry.

Expect lots more limitations in contracts about what folks are allowed to do, or not do, relative to the inspection practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt wrote:

This sort of thing is going to be getting more airtime in the near future.

The inspection business is now mainstream, and it has a strong effect on the real estate transaction, as it should.

(I say AMEN BROTHER)

The real estate industry (it's not a profession)

(I say AMEN BROTHER)

historically has taken immediate & powerful steps to squash anything that effects or alters control of the transaction by the realtors. The track record is pretty much 100% success in keeping any intelligent consumer business practice out of the process. The real estate industry is not about buying; it's about selling.

(I say AMEN BROTHER)

Now we're in the game as advocates for buyers; that's a bad thing for the real estate industry, a good thing for consumers.

(I say AMEN BROTHER)

Real estater's will be pushing this sort of crap harder & harder as buyer's find their voice in the transaction.

Look for more limitations on what we're allowed to say, or how we say it.

It's showdown time folks; the Justice Dept. has the NAR in Federal Court right now, right here in Chicago. It's the first salvo for breaking up the hegemony of realtors. Realtors aren't going to take it lightly; it's a $65 billion commission industry.

(I ask: CAN YOU ELABORATE?)

Expect lots more limitations in contracts about what folks are allowed to do, or not do, relative to the inspection practice.

(I say AMEN BROTHER) Hell, I feel like I don't have to go to Church next Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can not help but wonder if there may be just a slight bit of conflict of interest between Realtors and Inspectors that make a living off these controlling Realtor referrals as most of us do. Nah couldn't be that is to much of a stretch.

I do not mean to sound facetious just making a dumb statement.

Paul B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother George, thank you for the amens.

To elaborate on the lawsuit, it's about listings; the big boys (Cendant, etc...) have so far successfully withheld listings from the "Realtor.com's", "FSBOChicago's" and the "4SaleByOwner" internet (cheap) listing services.

The JD sez listings are listings; the big boys & girls can't withhold the primo listings from an agent. If the MLS is finally cracked open, competitive agents can adjust commissions, & the absurd commission structure will collapse to several options, instead of the current single 6% option.

The big boys laughed @ Charles Schwab several decades ago; he was able to get out from under the thumb of the assholes, & look what he built. Without question, one of the best & most fair methods for transacting securities.

Should be the same way w/real estate. Hopefully, it will be. A lot of eyes are watching this lawsuit, mine included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...