No Conflict Seen

It is too bad that Sam Kaplan took a vacation--because only an attorney would make a statement like the one quoted in boldface type in your Real Estate section on July 16 (“Who Represents Whom in a Real Estate Sale?” by Robert J. Bruss).

Bruss says, “There is an inherent conflict of interest because the agent cannot objectively represent the best interest of both the seller and the buyer.”

Hogwash! Buyers and sellers are not adversaries. They are trying to accomplish the same goal--that of transferring the property at an acceptable price. And the real estate agent acts as a “counselor/negotiator/mediator.” Even when there are two agents involved (regardless of the agency relationship established between the parties) they are all working toward the same result.

When both buyer and seller have agents--then you have four people using their collective skills to get to the bottom line. And the bottom line is “$old.”

The responsibilities and duties of all agents are spelled out very specifically in the agency disclosures now required on all residential transactions, and while the “dual” agent must be extremely ethical and professional to serve in that capacity effectively, there is no “inherent conflict of interest.”

And even though the seller is usually the party who agrees to pay a commission--not too many of them bring money to the closing table--the actual dollars in the transaction come from a very important person all agents revere . . . the buyer!

D. MEANS

Redondo Beach