A great post about dual agency

I ran across a discussion on Inman News just now on dual agency and a couple of real estate people were suggesting that dual agency was good. (They never mentioned discounting their fees to consumers when the consumers were pushed into dramatically less service.)

There there was this post:

I said it before and I'll say it again!

I'm ALL FOR dual agency.
I'm all for having the prosecutor defend me in my criminal trial.
I'm all for having my future-ex-wife's lawyer represent my interests in my adversarial divorce.
I want to hire the used-car dealer to inspect & report to me on that nice cream-puff car he's selling, before I decide to buy it.
I'm a pro sports player and want the team's salary negotiator to help me negotiate my salary with the team.
I want the poker player across from me to advise me on my betting strategy for each hand.
I even want Kim Jung Il to be my negotiator on nuclear proliferation.
Like I said, I want a dual agency whenever I buy or sell a property.
I want that listing agent to know everything about my strengths and weaknesses in the negotiation, including my financial limits and how much I just HAVE to have that property!
The spider wants to have the fly over for dinner, too.
I'm ALL FOR dual agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or am I? Um, remind me why I, the consumer, would
want it? And remind me why lawyers (of all the honest people!) are BANNED from dual representation? Aren't they the ones who make up the laws? What's wrong with it ? ? ? ?
;>P
Keith Labrecque