It's not woe (well woe is the right word, but) is me realtors are mean. It could, and probably should, be considered collusion, which can be against the law. They're using that to generate a sort of monopoly to skim 6% off the housing market for their own gain. They've already been taken to court before for anti-competitive behavior and effectively lost that battle. This is just another run at the problem. Will they lose? Probably not, but it is collusion, it's shady, but is it illegal? I don't know.evestor1 said:
I think what she is saying is that there is no objective issue.
What you mentioned was more of a "whoa is me realtors are mean" ... seems hard to justify action against
hph6203 said:It's not woe (well woe is the right word, but) is me realtors are mean. It could, and probably should, be considered collusion, which can be against the law. They're using that to generate a sort of monopoly to skim 6% off the housing market for their own gain. They've already been taken to court before for anti-competitive behavior and effectively lost that battle. This is just another run at the problem. Will they lose? Probably not, but it is collusion, it's shady, but is it illegal? I don't know.evestor1 said:
I think what she is saying is that there is no objective issue.
What you mentioned was more of a "whoa is me realtors are mean" ... seems hard to justify action against
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052702977.html?noredirect=on
If those were the standards then why are there price fixing and monopoly laws on the books?Canyon99 said:
I've sold all of my houses FSBO and find this class action suit laughable. Two points; no one forced them enter into an agreement with a realtor and commissions are negotiable. Fools looking for a handout.
gig em 02 said:If those were the standards then why are there price fixing and monopoly laws on the books?Canyon99 said:
I've sold all of my houses FSBO and find this class action suit laughable. Two points; no one forced them enter into an agreement with a realtor and commissions are negotiable. Fools looking for a handout.
The bigger issue is the risk of taking thousands of depositions and having thousands of realtors admit to illegal activity. Wonder what the legal bill would be to have a lawyer sit in on those depos.
Anyone that tries to compete with MLS gets muscled out by the Realtor associations, who will play pretty dirty to keep their position.DallasAggie0 said:
With the way "MLS" is fragmented amongst different markets I am surprised CoStar hasn't jumped into residential yet. The interface is just so much more user friendly
Ed Carter said:
What rule are you referring to? Are you saying that when you sell a house there's a rule that says you have to pay 3% to the buyers agent? I was under the impression that even that was negotiable
There is no rule written anywhere that says the seller has to pay the commission.cjsag94 said:
I'm pretty sure you said that wrong.. seller pays the commission.... Which is the crux of the suit.
mazag08 said:There is no rule written anywhere that says the seller has to pay the commission.cjsag94 said:
I'm pretty sure you said that wrong.. seller pays the commission.... Which is the crux of the suit.
If somehow the courts decided that each party would pay their own commissions.. guess what?
The market would adjust and each party would still net the same thing they do now.