Ethical quandry

[Barb Barasa]

In the real estate business, brokers always used to get paid by the
sellers.  Someone eventually realized that buyers were under the
impression the broker was working for them (taking them to see
houses, helping them get financing, etc.) even tho they were still
getting paid by the seller.

In the last decade or so, there has been a push to clarify these
"fiduciary relationships" (relationships of legal agency) by: 1)
making it clear to all parties who is representing whom and 2)
offering buyer broker services, where the buyer signs a contract
directly with a broker who represents the buyer in all transactions.
The buyer brokers I know will not handle "both sides" of a
transaction.  This is called "dual agency."  It is not possible to
get the best price for the seller AND the best deal for the buyer.
If one of these brokers has listed a property and a buyer comes in to
find out about it, they will refer the buyer to another agent.

Intention does carry some weight legally, I suppose.  But in this
kind of transaction, intention is overruled by lines of agency.

I realize that the situations are not exactly the same, but they are
close.

Tom stated that he was being honest with the customer about the
condition of the piano.  It seems to me there would be no moral or
ethical dilemma if he were also honest with her about the fact that he will
receive money from the dealer. If that gives him a queasy feeling in
the pit of the stomach, then I think his question will answer itself.

I should add that I have not been in this position, so you should
give more weight to the responses of those who have.

Barb Barasa
Ashland OR
others who have should
"When nothing is sure,
     everything is possible."