Even though your buyer and seller sign a dual-agency disclosure, which presumes that they understand the agent's neutrality and confidentiality, one side or the other may not be as fairly represented as they would like.
Despite your best efforts to give both sides the highest standard of service, you may find yourself favoring one side over the other as you negotiate a transaction. One side is more willing to bend, or is more intractable. Your seller may be very pleasant to deal with, while your buyer may have unattractive attributes. You may have sympathy for the buyer, and none for the seller.
Human emotion is very complex causing us to show favoritism even when we consciously work to eliminate it. Ask anyone with children which of their offspring they prefer, and you'll get an instant denial that there is a favorite, but the averted eyes, and uncomfortable, guilt-ridden silence speak otherwise.
In dual agency, there are those who believe that because the seller pays the commission, the agent, even in representing the buyer, still owes a greater allegiance to the seller. There are those that believe the signing of a dual-agency contract changes that paradigm. What do you believe and what has experience taught you?
As an agent, do you believe it is possible to serve both sides equally well? Do you think dual agency is fair to both parties? What fiduciary responsibilities are left out of the typical dual agency disclosure contract that you would like to see added?
Give us your thoughts and experiences as we raise a new "Opinion Poll Question":
