A key element in the practice of real estate is the contract. Experienced
practitioners quickly become conversant with the elements of contract formation.
Inquiry, invitation, offer, counteroffer, contingency, waiver, acceptance,
rejection, execution, breach, rescission, reformation, and other words of art
become integral parts of the broker's vocabulary.
Check out a Hearing
Panel's Procuring Cause Worksheet that help them ask the right
questions, obtain all information at the hearing needed to make a fully
informed decision and guidelines for establishing procuring cause.
Given the significant degree to which Article 3’s mandate for cooperation—coupled
with everyday practicality, feasibility, and expediency—make cooperative
transactions facts of life, it quickly becomes apparent that in virtually every
real estate transaction there are actually several contracts which come into
play. Setting aside ancillary but still important contracts for things such
as mortgages, appraisals, inspections, title insurance, etc., in a typical
residential transaction (and the same will be true in many commercial transactions
as well) there are at least three (and often four) contracts involved, and
each, while established independently of the others, soon appears to be inextricably
intertwined with the others.
First, there is the listing contract between the seller and the listing broker.
This contract creates the relationship between these parties, establishes the
duties of each and the terms under which the listing broker will be deemed
to have earned a commission, and frequently will authorize the listing broker
to cooperate with or compensate (or both) cooperating brokers who may be subagents,
buyer agents, or acting in some other capacity.
Second, there is the contract between the listing broker and cooperating
brokers. While this may be created through an offer published through a multiple
listing service or through some other method of formalized cooperative effort,
it need not be. Unlike the bilateral listing contract (where generally the
seller agrees to pay a commission in return for the listing broker’s production of
a ready, willing, and able purchaser), the contract between the listing broker
and the cooperating broker is unilateral in nature. This simply means that
the listing broker determines the terms and conditions of the offer to potential
cooperating brokers (and this offer may vary as to different potential cooperating
brokers or as to cooperating brokers in different categories). This type of
contract differs from a bilateral contract also in that there is no contract
formed between the listing broker and the potential cooperating brokers upon
receipt of the listing broker’s offer. The contract is formed only
when accepted by the cooperating broker, and acceptance occurs only through
performance as the procuring cause of the successful transaction. (Revised
Third, there is the purchase contract—sometimes referred to as the
purchase and sale agreement. This bilateral contract between the seller and
the buyer establishes their respective promises and obligations to each other,
which may also impact on third parties. The fact that someone other than
the seller or buyer is referenced in the purchase contract does not make
him/her a party to that contract, though it may create rights or entitlements
which may be enforceable against a party (the buyer or seller).
Fourth, there may be a buyer-broker agreement in effect between the purchaser
and a broker. Similar in many ways to the listing contract, this bilateral
contract establishes the duties of the purchaser and the broker as well
as the terms and conditions of the broker’s compensation.
These contracts are similar in that they are created through offer and acceptance.
They vary in that acceptance of a bilateral contract is through a reciprocal
promise (e.g., the purchaser’s promise to pay the agreed price in return
for the seller’s promise to convey good title), while acceptance of a
unilateral contract is through performance (e.g., in producing or procuring
a ready, willing, and able purchaser).
Each of these contracts is subject to similar hazards in formation and afterward.
The maker’s (offeror’s) offer in any of these scenarios may be
accepted or rejected. The intended recipient of the offer (or offeree) may
counteroffer. There may be questions as to whether a contract was formed—e.g.,
was there an offer, was it accepted, was the acceptance on the terms and conditions
specified by the maker of the offer—or was the “acceptance” actually
a counteroffer (which, by definition, rejects the first offer). A contract,
once formed, may be breached. These and other questions of contract formation
arise on a daily basis. There are several methods by which contractual questions
(or “issues” or “disputes”) are resolved. These include
civil lawsuits, arbitration, and mediation.
Another key contract is the one entered into when a real estate professional
joins a local Board of REALTORS® and becomes a REALTOR®. In return
for the many benefits of membership, a REALTOR® promises to abide by the
duties of membership including strict adherence to the Code of Ethics. Among
the Code’s duties is the obligation to arbitrate, established in Article
17. Article 17 is interpreted through four Standards of Practice among which
is Standard of Practice 17-4 which enumerates four situations under which REALTORS® agree
to arbitrate specified non-contractual disputes. (Adopted 11/96)
Boards and Associations of REALTORS® provide arbitration to resolve contractual
issues and questions and specific non-contractual issues and questions that
arise between members, between members and their clients, and, in some cases,
between parties to a transaction brought about through the efforts of REALTORS®.
Disputes arising out of any of the four above-referenced contractual relationships
may be arbitrated, and the rules and procedures of Boards and Associations
of REALTORS® require that certain types of disputes must be arbitrated
if either party so requests. (Information on “mandatory” and “voluntary” arbitration
is found elsewhere in the Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual.) (Revised
While issues between REALTORS® and their clients—e.g., listing broker/seller
(or landlord) or buyer broker/buyer (or tenant)—are subject to mandatory
arbitration (subject to the client’s agreement to arbitrate), and issues
between sellers and buyers may be arbitrated at their mutual agreement, in
many cases such issues are resolved in the courts or in other alternative dispute
resolution forums (which may also be administered by Boards or Associations
of REALTORS®). The majority of arbitration hearings conducted by Boards
and Associations involve questions of contracts between REALTORS®, most
frequently between listing and cooperating brokers, or between two or more
cooperating brokers. These generally involve questions of procuring cause,
where the panel is called on to determine which of the contesting parties is
entitled to the funds in dispute. While awards are generally for the full amount
in question (which may be required by state law), in exceptional cases, awards
may be split between the parties (again, except where prohibited by state law).
Split awards are the exception rather than the rule and should be utilized
only when Hearing Panels determine that the transaction would have resulted
only through the combined efforts of both parties. It should also be considered
that questions of representation and entitlement to compensation are separate
issues. (Revised 11/98)
In the mid-1970s, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® established the
Arbitration Guidelines to assist Boards and Associations in reaching fair and
equitable decisions in arbitration; to prevent the establishment of any one,
single rule or standard by which arbitrable issues would be decided; and to
ensure that arbitrable questions would be decided by knowledgeable panels taking
into careful consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.
The Arbitration Guidelines have served the industry well for nearly two decades.
But, as broker-to-broker cooperation has increasingly involved contracts between
listing brokers and buyer brokers and between listing brokers and brokers acting
in nonagency capacities, the time came to update the Guidelines so they remained
relevant and useful. It is to this end that the following is intended.
As discussed earlier, one type of contract frequently entered into by REALTORS® is
the listing contract between sellers and listing brokers. Procuring cause disputes
between sellers and listing brokers are often decided in court. The reasoning
relied on by the courts in resolving such claims is articulated in Black’s
Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, definition of procuring cause:
The proximate cause; the cause originating a series of events which, without
break in their continuity, result in the accomplishment of the prime object.
The inducing cause; the direct or proximate cause. Substantially synonymous
with “efficient cause.”
A broker will be regarded as the “procuring cause” of a sale,
so as to be entitled to commission, if his efforts are the foundation on which
the negotiations resulting in a sale are begun. A cause originating a series
of events which, without break in their continuity, result in accomplishment
of prime objective of the employment of the broker who is producing a purchaser
ready, willing, and able to buy real estate on the owner’s terms. Mohamed
v. Robbins, 23 Ariz. App. 195, 531 p.2d 928, 930.
See also Producing cause; Proximate cause.
Disputes concerning the contracts between listing brokers and cooperating
brokers, however, are addressed by the National Association’s Arbitration
Guidelines promulgated pursuant to Article 17 of the Code of Ethics. While
guidance can be taken from judicial determinations of disputes between sellers
and listing brokers, procuring cause disputes between listing and cooperating
brokers, or between two cooperating brokers, can be resolved based on similar
though not identical principles. While a number of definitions of procuring
cause exist, and a myriad of factors may ultimately enter into any determination
of procuring cause, for purposes of arbitration conducted by Boards and Associations
of REALTORS®, procuring cause in broker to broker disputes can be readily
understood as the uninterrupted series of causal events which results in the
successful transaction. Or, in other words, what “caused” the successful
transaction to come about. “Successful transaction,” as used in
these Arbitration Guidelines, is defined as “a sale that closes or a
lease that is executed.” Many REALTORS®, Executive Officers, lawyers,
and others have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to develop a single, comprehensive
template that could be used in all procuring cause disputes to determine entitlement
to the sought-after award without the need for a comprehensive analysis of
all relevant details of the underlying transaction. Such efforts, while well-intentioned,
were doomed to failure in view of the fact that there is no “typical” real
estate transaction any more than there is “typical” real estate
or a “typical” REALTOR®. In light of the unique nature of real
property and real estate transactions, and acknowledging that fair and equitable
decisions could be reached only with a comprehensive understanding of the events
that led to the transaction, the National Association’s Board of Directors,
in 1973, adopted Official Interpretation 31 of Article I, Section 2 of the
Bylaws. Subsequently amended in 1977, Interpretation 31 establishes that:
A Board rule or a rule of a Multiple Listing Service owned by, operated by,
or affiliated with a Board, which establishes, limits or restricts the REALTOR® in
his relations with a potential purchaser, affecting recognition periods or
purporting to predetermine entitlement to any award in arbitration, is an inequitable
limitation on its membership.
The explanation of Interpretation 31 goes on to provide, in part:
. . . [T]he Board or its MLS may not establish a rule or regulation which
purports to predetermine entitlement to any awards in a real estate transaction.
If controversy arises as to entitlement to any awards, it shall be determined
by a hearing in arbitration on the merits of all ascertainable facts in the
context of the specific case of controversy.
It is not uncommon for procuring cause disputes to arise out of offers by
listing brokers to compensate cooperating brokers made through a multiple listing
service. A multiple listing service is defined as a facility for the orderly
correlation and dissemination of listing information among Participants so
that they may better serve their clients and customers and the public; is a
means by which authorized Participants make blanket unilateral offers of compensation
to other Participants (acting as subagents, buyer agents, or in other agency
or nonagency capacities defined by law); is a means by which information is
accumulated and disseminated to enable authorized Participants to prepare appraisals
and other valuations of real property; and is a means by which Participants
engaging in real estate appraisal contribute to common databases. Entitlement
to compensation is determined by the cooperating broker’s performance
as procuring cause of the sale (or lease). While offers of compensation made
by listing brokers to cooperating brokers through MLS are unconditional,*
[*Compensation is unconditional except where local MLS rules permit listing
brokers to reserve the right to reduce compensation offers to cooperating brokers
in the event that the commission established in a listing contract is reduced
by court action or by actions of a lender. Refer to Multiple Listing Policy
Statement 7.23, Information Specifying the Compensation on Each Listing Filed
with a Multiple Listing Service of a Board of REALTORS®, Handbook on Multiple
Listing Policy. (Adopted 11/98)]
the definition of MLS and the offers of compensation made through the MLS
provide that a listing broker’s obligation to compensate a cooperating
broker who was the procuring cause of sale (or lease) may be excused if it
is determined through arbitration that, through no fault of the listing broker
and in the exercise of good faith and reasonable care, it was impossible or
financially unfeasible for the listing broker to collect a commission pursuant
to the listing agreement. In such instances, entitlement to cooperative compensation
offered through MLS would be a question to be determined by an arbitration
Hearing Panel based on all relevant facts and circumstances including, but
not limited to, why it was impossible or financially unfeasible for the listing
broker to collect some or all of the commission established in the listing
agreement; at what point in the transaction did the listing broker know (or
should have known) that some or all of the commission established in the listing
agreement might not be paid; and how promptly had the listing broker communicated
to cooperating brokers that the commission established in the listing agreement
might not be paid. (Revised 11/98)
Factors for Consideration by Arbitration Hearing Panels
The following factors are recommended for consideration by Hearing Panels
convened to arbitrate disputes between brokers, or between brokers and their
clients or their customers. This list is not all-inclusive nor can it be. Not
every factor will be applicable in every instance. The purpose is to guide
panels as to facts, issues, and relevant questions that may aid them in reaching
fair, equitable, and reasoned decisions.
Factor #1. No predetermined rule of entitlement
Every arbitration hearing is considered in light of all of the relevant
facts and circumstances as presented by the parties and their witnesses. “Rules
of thumb,” prior decisions by other panels in other matters, and
other predeterminants are to be disregarded.
Procuring cause shall be the primary determining factor in entitlement to
compensation. Agency relationships, in and of themselves, do not determine
entitlement to compensation. The agency relationship with the client and entitlement
to compensation are separate issues. A relationship with the client, or lack
of one, should only be considered in accordance with the guidelines established
to assist panel members in determining procuring cause. (Adopted 4/95)
Factor #2. Arbitrability and appropriate parties
While primarily the responsibility of the Grievance Committee, arbitration
Hearing Panels may consider questions of whether an arbitrable issue actually
exists and whether the parties named are appropriate to arbitration. A
detailed discussion of these questions can be found in Appendix I to Part Ten,
Factor #3. Relevance and admissibility
Frequently, Hearing Panels are asked to rule on questions of admissibility
and relevancy. While state law, if applicable, controls, the general rule
is that anything the Hearing Panel believes may assist it in reaching a
fair, equitable, and knowledgeable decision is admissible.
Arbitration Hearing Panels are called on to resolve contractual questions,
not to determine whether the law or the Code of Ethics has been violated.
An otherwise substantiated award cannot be withheld solely on the basis that
the Hearing Panel looks with disfavor on the potential recipient’s manner
of doing business or even that the panel believes that unethical conduct may
have occurred. To prevent any appearance of bias, arbitration Hearing Panels
and procedural review panels shall make no referrals of ethical concerns to
the Grievance Committee. This is based on the premise that the fundamental
right and primary responsibility to bring potentially unethical conduct to
the attention of the Grievance Committee rests with the parties and others
with firsthand knowledge.
At the same time, evidence or testimony is not inadmissible
simply because it relates to potentially unethical conduct. While an award
(or failure to make a deserved award) cannot be used to “punish” a
perceived “wrongdoer”, it is equally true that Hearing Panels
are entitled to (and fairness requires that they) consider all relevant evidence
and testimony so that they will have a clear understanding of what transpired
before determining entitlement to any award. (Amended 11/96)
Factor #4. Communication and contact—abandonment
Many arbitrable disputes will turn on the relationship (or lack thereof)
between a broker (often a cooperating broker) and a prospective purchaser.
Panels will consider whether, under the circumstances and in accord with
local custom and practice, the broker made reasonable efforts to develop
and maintain an ongoing relationship with the purchaser. Panels will want
to determine, in cases where two cooperating brokers have competing claims
against a listing broker, whether the first cooperating broker actively maintained
ongoing contact with the purchaser or, alternatively, whether the broker’s
inactivity, or perceived inactivity, may have caused the purchaser to
reasonably conclude that the broker had lost interest or disengaged from
the transaction (abandonment). In other instances, a purchaser, despite reasonable
efforts by the broker to maintain ongoing contact, may seek assistance from
The panel will want to consider why the purchaser was estranged from
the first broker. In still other instances, there may be no question that
there was an ongoing relationship between the broker and purchaser; the
issue then becomes whether the broker’s conduct or, alternatively, the broker’s
failure to act when necessary, caused the purchaser to terminate the relationship
(estrangement). This can be caused, among other things, by words or actions
or lack of words or actions when called for. Panels will want to consider
whether such conduct, or lack thereof, caused a break in the series of
events leading to the transaction and whether the successful transaction
was actually brought about through the initiation of a separate, subsequent
series of events by the second cooperating broker. (Revised 11/99)
Factor #5. Conformity with state law
The procedures by which arbitration requests are received, hearings are conducted,
and awards are made must be in strict conformity with the law. In such
matters, the advice of Board legal counsel should be followed.
Factor #6. Consideration of the entire course of events
The standard of proof in Board-conducted arbitration is a preponderance of
the evidence, and the initial burden of proof rests with the party requesting
arbitration (see Professional Standards Policy Statement 26). This does not,
however, preclude panel members from asking questions of the parties or witnesses
to confirm their understanding of testimony presented or to ensure that panel
members have a clear understanding of the events that led to the transaction
and to the request for arbitration. Since each transaction is unique, it
is impossible to develop a comprehensive list of all issues or questions
that panel members may want to consider in a particular hearing. Panel members
are advised to consider the following, which are representative of the issues
and questions frequently involved in arbitration hearings.
The Nature and status of the transaction
(1) What was the nature of the transaction? Was there a residential or commercial
(2) Is or was the matter the subject of litigation involving the same parties
and issues as the arbitration?
The Nature, status, and terms of the listing agreement
(1) What was the nature of the listing or other agreement: exclusive right
to sell, exclusive agency, open, or some other form of agreement?
(2) Was the listing agreement in writing? If not, is the listing agreement
(3) Was the listing agreement in effect at the time the sales contract was
(4) Was the property listed subject to a management agreement?
(5) Were the broker’s actions in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the listing agreement?
(a) Were all conditions of the listing agreement met?
(b) Did the final terms of the sale meet those specified in the listing agreement?
(c) Did the transaction close? (Refer to Appendix I to Part Ten, Arbitrable
(d) Did the listing broker receive a commission? If not, why not? (Refer to
Appendix I to Part Ten, Arbitrable Issues)
Nature, status, and terms of buyer representation agreements
(1) What was the nature of any buyer representation agreement(s)? Was the agreement(s)
exclusive or non-exclusive? What capacity(ies) was the cooperating broker(s)
functioning in, e.g., agent, legally-recognized non-agent, other?
(2) Was the buyer representation agreement(s) in writing? Is it enforceable?
(3) What were the terms of compensation established in the buyer representation
(4) Was the buyer representative(s) a broker or firm to which an offer of compensation
was made by the listing broker?
(5) Was the buyer representative(s) actions in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the buyer representation agreement(s)?
(6) At what point in the buying process was the buyer representation relationship
established? (Revised 05/03)
Nature, status, and terms of the offer to compensate
(1) Was an offer of cooperation and compensation made in writing? If not,
how was it communicated?
(2) Is the claimant a party to whom the listing broker’s offer of
compensation was extended?
(3) Were the broker’s actions in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the offer of cooperation and compensation (if any)? Were all conditions
of the agreement met?
Roles and relationships of the parties
(1) Who was the listing broker?
(2) Who was the cooperating broker or brokers?
(3) Were any of the brokers acting as subagents? As buyer brokers? In another
legally recognized capacity?
(4) Did the cooperating broker(s) have an agreement, written or otherwise,
to act as agent or in another legally recognized capacity on behalf of any
of the parties?
(5) Were any of the brokers (including the listing broker) acting as a principal
in the transaction?
(6) What were the brokers’ relationships with respect to the seller,
the purchaser, the listing broker, and any other cooperating brokers involved
in the transaction?
(a) Was the buyer represented by a party with whom the broker had previously
(b) Is the primary shareholder of the buyer-corporation a party with whom
the broker had previously
(c) Was a prior prospect a vital link to the buyer?
(7) Are all appropriate parties to the matter joined?
Initial contact with the purchaser
(1) Who first introduced the purchaser or tenant to the property?
(2) When was the first introduction made?
(a) Was the introduction made when the buyer had a specific need for that
type of property?
(b) Was the introduction instrumental in creating the desire to purchase?
(c) Did the buyer know about the property before the broker contacted him?
Did he know it was for sale?
(d) Were there previous dealings between the buyer and the seller?
(e) Did the buyer find the property on his own?
(3) How was the first introduction made?
(a) Was the property introduced as an open house?
(b) What subsequent efforts were made by the broker after the open house?
(Refer to Factor #1)
(c) Was the introduction made to a different representative of the buyer?
(d) Was the “introduction” merely a mention that the property
(e) What property was first introduced?
Conduct of the brokers
(1) Were all required disclosures complied with?
(2) Was there a faithful exercise of the duties a broker owes to his client/principal?
(3) If more than one cooperating broker was involved, was either (or both)
aware of the other’s role in the transaction?
(4) Did the broker who made the initial introduction to the property engage
in conduct (or fail to take some action) which caused the purchaser or tenant
to utilize the services of another broker? (Refer to Factor #4)
(5) Did the cooperating broker (or second cooperating broker) initiate a
separate series of events, unrelated to and not dependent on any other broker’s
efforts, which led to the successful transaction—that is, did the broker
perform services which assisted the buyer in making his decision to purchase?
(Refer to Factor #4)
(a) Did the broker make preparations to show the property to the buyer?
(b) Did the broker make continued efforts after showing the property?
(c) Did the broker remove an impediment to the sale?
(d) Did the broker make a proposal upon which the final transaction was based?
(e) Did the broker motivate the buyer to purchase?
(6) How do the efforts of one broker compare to the efforts of another?
(a) What was the relative amount of effort by one broker compared to another?
(b) What was the relative success or failure of negotiations conducted by
one broker compared to the other?
(7) If more than one cooperating broker was involved, how and when did the
second cooperating broker enter the transaction?
Continuity and breaks in continuity (abandonment and estrangement)
(1) What was the length of time between the broker’s efforts and the
final sales agreement?
(2) Did the original introduction of the purchaser or tenant to the property
start an uninterrupted series of events leading to the sale or lease, or
was the series of events hindered or interrupted in any way?
(a) Did the buyer terminate the relationship with the broker? Why? (Refer
to Factor #4)
(b) Did negotiations break down?
(3) If there was an interruption or break in the original series of events,
how was it caused, and by whom?
(a) Did the seller change the listing agreement from an open listing to an
exclusive listing agreement with another broker?
(b) Did the purchaser’s motive for purchasing change?
(c) Was there interference in the series of events from any outside or intervening
cause or party?
(4) Did the broker who made the initial introduction to the property maintain
contact with the purchaser or tenant, or could the broker’s inaction
have reasonably been viewed by the buyer or tenant as a withdrawal from the
(5) Was the entry of any cooperating broker into the transaction an intrusion
into an existing relationship between the purchaser and another broker, or
was it the result of abandonment or estrangement of the purchaser, or at
the request of the purchaser?
Conduct of the buyer
(1) Did the buyer make the decision to buy independent of the broker’s
(2) Did the buyer negotiate without any aid from the broker?
(3) Did the buyer seek to freeze out the broker?
(a) Did the buyer seek another broker in order to get a lower price?
(b) Did the buyer express the desire not to deal with the broker and refuse
to negotiate through him?
(c) Did the contract provide that no brokers or certain brokers had been
Conduct of the seller
(1) Did the seller act in bad faith to deprive the broker of his commission?
(a) Was there bad faith evident from the fact that the difference between
the original bid submitted and the final sales price equaled the broker’s
(b) Was there bad faith evident from the fact that a sale to a third party
was a straw transaction (one in which a non-involved party posed as the buyer)
which was designed to avoid paying commission?
(c) Did the seller freeze out the broker to avoid a commission dispute or
to avoid paying a commissionat all?
(2) Was there bad faith evident from the fact that the seller told the broker
he would not sell on certain terms, but did so via another broker or via
the buyer directly?
(1) Did the cooperating broker have a tenant representation agreement?
(2) Was the cooperating broker working with the “authorized” staff
member of the tenant company?
(3) Did the cooperating broker prepare a tenant needs analysis?
(4) Did the cooperating broker prepare a market analysis of available properties?
(5) Did the cooperating broker prepare a tour book showing alternative properties
and conduct a tour?
(6) Did the cooperating broker show the tenant the property leased?
(7) Did the cooperating broker issue a request for proposal on behalf of
the tenant for the property leased?
(8) Did the cooperating broker take an active part in the lease negotiations?
(9) Did the cooperating broker obtain the tenant’s signature on the
(10) Did the tenant work with more than one broker; and if so, why? (Revised
Is there any other information that would assist the Hearing Panel in having
a full, clear understanding of the transaction giving rise to the arbitration
request or in reaching a fair and equitable resolution of the matter?
These questions are typical, but not all-inclusive, of the questions that
may assist Hearing Panels in understanding the issues before them. The objective
of a panel is to carefully and impartially weigh and analyze the whole course
of conduct of the parties and render a reasoned peer judgment with respect
to the issues and questions presented and to the request for award.
Sample Fact Situation Analysis
The National Association’s Professional Standards Committee has consistently
taken the position that arbitration awards should not include findings of fact
or rationale for the arbitrators’ award. Among the reasons for this are
the fact that arbitration awards are not appealable on the merits but generally
only on the limited procedural bases established in the governing state arbitration
statute; that the issues considered by Hearing Panels are often myriad and
complex, and the reasoning for an award may be equally complex and difficult
to reduce to writing; and that the inclusion of written findings of fact or
rationale (or both) would conceivably result in attempts to use such detail
as “precedent” in subsequent hearings which might or might not
involve similar facts. The end result might be elimination of the careful consideration
of the entire course of events and conduct contemplated by these procedures
and establishment of local, differing arbitration “templates” or
predeterminants of entitlement inconsistent with these procedures and Interpretation
Weighed against these concerns, however, was the desire to provide some model
or sample applications of the factors, questions, and issues set forth in these
Arbitration Guidelines. The following “fact situations” and analyses
are provided for informational purposes and are not intended to carry precedential
weight in any hearing.
Fact Situation #1
Listing Broker L placed a listing in the MLS and offered compensation to subagents
and to buyer agents. Broker Z, not a participant in the MLS, called to arrange
an appointment to show the property to a prospective purchaser. There was
no discussion of compensation. Broker Z presented Broker L with a signed
purchase agreement, which was accepted by the seller. Subsequently, Broker
Z requested arbitration with Broker L, claiming to be the procuring cause
Analysis: While Broker Z may have been the procuring cause of sale, Broker
L’s offer of compensation was made only to members of the MLS. Broker
L never offered cooperation and compensation to Broker Z, nor did Broker
Z request compensation at any time prior to instituting the arbitration
request. There was no contractual relationship between them, and therefore
no issue to arbitrate.
Fact Situation #2
Same as #1, except Broker Z is the buyer’s agent.
Analysis: Same result, since there was no contractual relationship between
Broker L and Broker Z and no issue to arbitrate.
Fact Situation #3
Broker L placed a listing in the MLS and offered compensation to subagents
and to buyer agents. Broker S (a subagent) showed the property to Buyer #1
on Sunday and again on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Broker A (a subagent) wrote
an offer to purchase on behalf of Buyer #1 which was presented to the seller
by Broker L and which was accepted. At closing, subagency compensation is
paid to Broker A. Broker S subsequently filed an arbitration request against
Broker A, claiming to be the procuring cause of sale.
Analysis: Broker S’s claim could have been brought against Broker
A (pursuant to Standard of Practice 17-4) or against Broker L (the listing
broker), who had promised to compensate the procuring cause of sale, thus
arguably creating a contractual relationship between Broker L and Broker
S. (Amended 11/96)
Fact Situation #4
Same as #3, except Broker S filed the arbitration request against Broker L
(the listing broker).
Analysis: This is an arbitrable matter, since Broker L promised to compensate
the procuring cause of sale. Broker L, to avoid the possibility of having to
pay two cooperating brokers in the same transaction, should join Broker A in
arbitration so that all competing claims can be resolved in a single hearing.
The Hearing Panel will consider, among other things, why Buyer #1 made the
offer to purchase through Broker A instead of Broker S. If it is determined
that Broker S initiated a series of events which were unbroken in their continuity
and which resulted in the sale, Broker S will likely prevail.
Fact Situation #5
Same as #3, except Broker L offered compensation only to subagents. Broker
B (a buyer agent) requested permission to show the property to Buyer #1,
wrote an offer which was accepted, and subsequently claimed to be the procuring
cause of sale.
Analysis: Since Broker L did not make an offer of compensation to buyer brokers,
there was no contractual relationship between Broker L and Broker B and no
arbitrable issue to resolve.
If, on the other hand, Broker L had offered compensation to buyer brokers
either through MLS or otherwise and had paid Broker A, then arbitration could
have been conducted between Broker B and Broker A pursuant to Standard of Practice
17-4. Alternatively, arbitration could occur between Broker B and Broker L.
Fact Situation #6
Listing Broker L placed a listing in the MLS and made an offer of compensation
to subagents and to buyer agents. Broker S (a subagent) showed the property
to Buyer #1, who appeared uninterested. Broker S made no effort to further
contact Buyer #1. Six weeks later, Broker B (a buyer broker) wrote an offer
on the property on behalf of Buyer #1, presented it to Broker L, and it was
accepted. Broker S subsequently filed for arbitration against Broker L, claiming
to be the procuring cause. Broker L joined Broker B in the request so that
all competing claims could be resolved in one hearing.
Analysis: The Hearing Panel will consider Broker S’s initial introduction
of the buyer to the property, the period of time between Broker S’s last
contact with the buyer and the time that Broker B wrote the offer, and the
reason Buyer #1 did not ask Broker S to write the offer. Given the length of
time between Broker S’s last contact with the buyer, the fact that
Broker S had made no subsequent effort to contact the buyer, and the length
of time that transpired before the offer was written, abandonment of the
buyer may have occurred. If this is the case, the Hearing Panel may conclude
that Broker B instituted a second, separate series of events that was directly
responsible for the successful transaction.
Fact Situation #7
Same as #6, except that Broker S (a subagent) showed Buyer #1 the property
several times, most recently two days before the successful offer to purchase
was written by Broker B (a buyer broker). At the arbitration hearing, Buyer
#1 testified she was not dissatisfied in any way with Broker S but simply
decided that “I needed a buyer agent to be sure that I got the best
Analysis: The Hearing Panel should consider Broker S’s initial introduction
of the buyer to the property; that Broker S had remained in contact with the
buyer on an ongoing basis; and whether Broker S’s efforts were primarily
responsible for bringing about the successful transaction. Unless abandonment
or estrangement can be demonstrated, resulting, for example, because of something
Broker S said or did (or neglected to say or do but reasonably should have),
Broker S will likely prevail. Agency relationships are not synonymous with
nor determinative of procuring cause. Representation and entitlement to compensation
are separate issues. (Amended 11/99)
Fact Situation #8
Similar to #6, except Buyer #1 asked Broker S for a comparative market analysis
as the basis for making a purchase offer. Broker S reminded Buyer #1 that
he (Broker S) had clearly disclosed his status as subagent, and that he
could not counsel Buyer #1 as to the property’s market value. Broker
B based his claim to entitlement on the grounds that he had provided Buyer
#1 with information that Broker S could not or would not provide.
Analysis: The Hearing Panel should consider Broker S’s initial introduction
of the buyer to the property; that Broker S had made early and timely disclosure
of his status as a subagent; whether adequate alternative market information
was available to enable Buyer #1 to make an informed purchase decision; and
whether Broker S’s inability to provide a comparative market analysis
of the property had clearly broken the chain of events leading to the sale.
If the panel determines that the buyer did not have cause to leave Broker
S for Broker B, they may conclude that the series of events initiated by
Broker S remained unbroken, and Broker S will likely prevail.
Fact Situation #9
Similar to #6, except Broker S made no disclosure of his status as subagent
(or its implications) until faced with Buyer #1’s request for a comparative
Analysis: The Hearing Panel should consider Broker S’s initial introduction
of the buyer to the property; Broker S’s failure to clearly disclose
his agency status on a timely basis; whether adequate alternative market information
was available to enable Buyer #1 to make an informed purchase decision; and
whether Broker S’s belated disclosure of his agency status (and its implications)
clearly broke the chain of events leading to the sale. If the panel determines
that Broker S’s failure to disclose his agency status was a reasonable
basis for Buyer #1’s decision to engage the services of Broker B, they
may conclude that the series of events initiated by Broker S had been broken,
and Broker B will likely prevail.
Fact Situation #10
Listing Broker L placed a property on the market for sale or lease and offered
compensation to brokers inquiring about the property. Broker A, acting as
a subagent, showed the property on two separate occasions to the vice president
of manufacturing for ABC Corporation. Broker B, also acting as a subagent
but independent of Broker A, showed the same property to the chairman of
ABC Corporation, whom he had known for more than fifteen (15) years. The
chairman liked the property and instructed Broker B to draft and present
a lease on behalf of ABC Corporation to Broker L, which was accepted by the
owner/landlord. Subsequent to the commencement of the lease, Broker A requested
arbitration with Broker L, claiming to be the procuring cause.
Analysis: This is an arbitrable matter as Broker L offered compensation
to the procuring cause of the sale or lease. To avoid the possibility of
having to pay two commissions, Broker L joined Broker B in arbitration so
that all competing claims could be resolved in a single hearing. The Hearing
Panel considered both brokers’ introductions of the property to ABC Corporation. Should
the Hearing Panel conclude that both brokers were acting independently and
through separate series of events, the Hearing Panel may conclude that Broker
B was directly responsible for the lease and should be entitled to the cooperating
broker’s portion of the commission. (Adopted 11/96)
Fact Situation #11
Broker A, acting as the agent for an out-of-state corporation, listed for
sale or lease a 100,000 square foot industrial facility. The property was
marketed offering compensation to both subagents and buyer/tenant agents.
Over a period of several months, Broker A made the availability of the
property known to XYZ Company and, on three (3) separate occasions, showed
the property to various operational staff of XYZ Company. After the third
showing, the vice president of finance asked Broker A to draft a lease
for his review with the president of XYZ Company and its in-house counsel.
The president, upon learning that Broker A was the listing agent for the
property, instructed the vice president of finance to secure a tenant representative
to ensure that XYZ Company was getting “the best deal.” One
week later, tenant representative Broker T presented Broker A with the
same lease that Broker A had previously drafted and the president of XYZ
Company had signed. The lease was accepted by the out-of-state corporation.
Upon payment of the lease commission to Broker A, Broker A denied compensation
to Broker T and Broker T immediately requested arbitration claiming to
be the procuring cause.
Analysis: The Hearing Panel should consider Broker A’s initial introduction
of XYZ Company to the property, Broker A’s contact with XYZ Company
on an on-going basis, and whether Broker A initiated the series of events
which led to the successful lease. Given the above facts, Broker A will likely
prevail. Agency relationships are not synonymous with nor determinative of
procuring cause. Representation and entitlement to compensation are separate
Fact Situation #12
Broker A has had a long-standing relationship with Client B, the real estate
manager of a large, diversified company. Broker A has acquired or disposed
of twelve (12) properties for Client B over a five (5) year period. Client
B asks Broker A to locate a large warehouse property to consolidate inventories
from three local plants. Broker A conducts a careful evaluation of the
operational and logistical needs of the plants, prepares a report of his
findings for Client B, and identifies four (4) possible properties that
seem to meet most of Client B’s needs. At Client B’s request, he arranges and conducts
inspections of each of these properties with several operations level individuals.
Two (2) of the properties were listed for sale exclusively by Broker C.
the inspections, Broker A sends Broker C a written registration letter
in which he identifies Client B’s company and outlines his expectation
to be paid half of any commission that might arise from a transaction on
either of the properties. Broker C responds with a written denial of registration,
but agrees to share any commission that results from a transaction procured
by Broker A on either of the properties. Six (6) weeks after the inspections,
Client B selects one of the properties and instructs Broker A to initiate
negotiations with Broker C. After several weeks the negotiations reach an
Two (2) weeks later, Broker A learns that Broker C has presented
a proposal directly to Client B for the other property that was previously
inspected. Broker A then contacts Broker C, and demands to be included
in the negotiations. Broker C refuses, telling Broker A that he has “lost
control of his prospect,” and will not be recognized if a transaction
takes place on the second property. The negotiations proceed, ultimately
resulting in a sale of the second property. Broker A files a request for
arbitration against Broker C.
Analysis: This would be an arbitrable dispute as a compensation agreement
existed between Broker A and Broker C. The Hearing Panel will consider
Broker A’s introduction of the property to Client B, the property reports
prepared by Broker A, and the time between the impasse in negotiations on
the first property and the sale of the second property. If the Hearing Panel
determines that Broker A initiated the series of events that led to the successful
sale, Broker A will likely prevail. (Adopted 11/96)
Berkshire County Board of Realtors® -
99 West Street, Suite 200 Pittsfield, MA 01201-5845 413-442-8049 Sandra
J. Carroll, Chief Executive Officer - Sue
O'Brien, Member Services Admin - Kim Gritman, Office Clerk