| |
![]() |
||||||||
| PikeNet
Dispatch, November 2, 2006 Vol 11 No. 74 (976), "More than 9,000 subscribers" |
|||||||||
| Subscriber: |
|
|||||||||
| Previous Dispatch / Next Dispatch | ||||||||||
Disclosure Marketing... Last week's Dispatch, Trust Me, Now Sign Here (Oct 26), asked readers to comment on disclosure requirements in their states. Dewey Struble with Sperry Van Ness in Reno explains to prospects "This is [Nevada's disclosure] law, and here is what it means and how it protects you, the client. Very seldom does it have any effect on our relationship with the client. Many times it actually strengthens it since I personally abhor dual agency and explain why to the client." George Bera of the Bera Group in Grand Rapids, MI, writes, "Michigan first required all licensed agents to present an agency disclosure form at the earliest practical moment when meeting with a buyer or seller. Then, after negative feedback from the commercial practitioners, the state removed the mandatory requirement for all commercial agents since the level of sophistication is perceived to be higher in commercial transactions..."
Gary Harbaugh with Sperry Van Ness in Fort Wayne, IN, writes, "There is no 'sub-agency' in Indiana. In the vernacular, an agent represents the person with whom he (she) is working." So he has drafted a standard clause in agreements to act as a "limited agent." Paul Jackson with the Chambers Commercial Real Estate Group in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada writes, "The Real Estate Regulatory Body in Ontario requires a client be fully informed about the distinctions between client, customer, and dual agency followed by the appropriate written acknowledgement... at the beginning of the broker and client/customer relationship." -- Peter Pike |
||||||||||
| Peter Pike / PikeNet | Copyright © PikeNet
1996-2006 All Rights Reserved |
|