The Holdover Clause; Does It Matter To The Buyer?

There was a recent CBC news story about a gentlemen who bought a house and was sued by his former agent for commissions "owed". The challenge here is that when you are selling your home a hold over clause usually negates when you sign a new listing agreement with an agent. When purchasing and signing a Buyers Representation Agreement (BRA) the holdover clause is not replaced with a new contract.

The concern here shouldn't be the holdover clause, it should be the BRA in the first place. Why should an agent get the exclusivity to my purchasing if they are not doing their job. In most cases, like the one in the CBC story, if the agent is enforcing a BRA holdover, it's likely they were not living up to the expectations of the client. Simply put, they didn't do the job they were contracted to do. I would think that, as a professional, I should work at earning my clients trust and respect to keep them loyal to me, not be a smooth talking salesman and sign them to a contract locking them up for upwards of 6 months.

The worst part of this story, IMHO, is that the governing body (RECO) says the buyer is at fault. This is what happens when you have self policed industries working under what could be considered a monopoly.

What are your thoughts? How would you feel if someone didn't do their job and you got told you had to pay $12,800 to them because they made you sign a bunch of papers as a "trusted professional"?


M