From a technical perspective it is WAY to easy to forge an email for it to be used for a binding legal matter such as a contract.

My thoughts - Rich just got lucky and saved a lot on money, as the same home will be worth 10-20% less next year.

I cannot see how an e-mail is a binding contract as it is too easy to fake an e-mail address. Anyway, my understanding is that contracts, especially real estate contracts, require the signature of both parties on the document. Even though the seller supposedly said in an e-mail that she had sent the signed contract to her realtor, she still had the right to tell her realtor to refrain from forwarding it on. Also, if there was any change to contract terms offered by the buyer, what the seller was proferring was a counter-offer which would need the signature of the buyer indicating acceptance of the revised contract terms.
I seem to remember some time ago during the height of the boom reading that such differences between the time the seller told the buyer they would accept their offer and the buyer then discovering the seller instead sold to a new bidder without forwarding the contract to the original buyer happened quite often

In my opinion, there is not enough information given to determine if the contract was accepted. I am not an attorney, but the main question I would have is if the seller accepted the contract PRIOR to the agent's request to remedy any defect from a home inspection. The consideration between parties would have been BEFORE the request by the agent. The request by the agent would then be an Addendum to the sales contract. It should then be determined that the buyer would have the right to accept or reject the Addendum.

I have a feeling that the seller's agent is the one who decided to kill the deal, not the seller. The seller's agent, in my opinion, did not fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to the seller. I am curious to know what terms changed from the original buyer to the new buyer. Was it an increase in price? If so, why didn't the seller's agent contact the buyer's agent to inform them they received a higher price? Was there a difference in contingencies in the contract? Was the new buyer's agent from the same company as the seller's agency (dual agency)? Did the new buyer agree to use affiliations of the seller (mortgage, title, etc.)?

I think these questions deserve to be looked into. If the seller's agent did not change the terms, and was instead receiving extra compensation with this new buyer, then I think there should be some merit to their case. As sad as it may be, real estate agents commit RESPA Violations without knowing they do so.

As a real estate agent (NOT a lawyer), we are taught that in Maryland a contract is not binding until signed copies have been exchanged by the two parties. It is the listing agent's fiduciary duty to the Seller to make sure that all contract offers are presented, even after an acceptable offer has been signed. It is then the Seller's prerogative to make the decision as to what to do. While the actual specifics of the deal might shed some light on the Seller's motivation (the details of each offer are confidential, however), in this tough market where bona fide contracts are scarce, I think its highly unlikely and very unfair for anyone to assume its the Seller's agent who "killed the deal." That is NOT what we do.

If, as the notes above hint, the Seller's response was... I like your offer but there's just one little change I want to make... then --again what we are taught is true under Maryland law-- the Seller has actually rejected the entire offer made by the Buyer, and is counter-offering the exact same terms with one exception, and no agreement has been reached.

I also don't know what contract Mr. Glazer is referring to.. the current MAR basic contract is now ELEVEN pages, and with addenda can easily reach twenty, to twenty-five pages in length. These situations are very complicated, and that's why hiring a competent agent is still in most buyers' best interest.

So, if the seller is represented by an Agent, why would the seller accept/permit any direct communication with a prospective buyer - especially during contract negotiation - rather than instruct the buyer to run all communications through the Agent? Isn't that why they hired the Agent in the first place? Otherwise, they've just spent a lot of money on a "consultant."

Pete, you're right. As agents, we usually discourage that kind of direct contact, because of the possibility of misundertanding between the parties. But sometimes our clients disregard our advice out of the enthusiasm of the moment.

I also want to address something from earlier posts: as a listing agent, my commission check is not made larger if my listing is sold to a buyer working with another agent with my company. I do not make more money if that buyer uses a specific title company, or a particular lender. So, my motivation is the best deal for my client, the Seller. I might recommend one contract over another because of the most money, or the strongest buyer financial qualification, the largest downpayment... anything that makes one contract a better bet to get to the settlement table. This concept that a listing agent benefits personally from the choices made by another agent's buyer client is false.

A realtor's #1 goal is to close the deal and earn that commission check, period. Who's getting the better end of the deal is of secondary concern.

As for "discouraging" direct communication between buyer and seller, of course you do, if they could communicate directly they wouldn't need you. Find me any market that functions more efficiently when walls are built between principals. How the NAR has avoided anti-trust violations for monopolizing the MLS is a testament to the NAR lobbying powers.

People who take a 40 hour course and pass a test those with IQ's of 90 could pass try to act as if they are performing the duty of those who went to law school for 3 years and passed a state and national bar exam. The smoothest transactions by far with the happiest parties on both sides of the transaction are agent free FSBO's and unrepresented buyers.

P.S. As for not making any additional money by selling to another LF agent or steering the client to Prosperity mortgage (the overpriced pseudo-broker for Wells Fargo you have an affiliated business arrangement with) or RGS/Fountainhead Title, you individually might not but Wes Foster and the company sure do and management continually pressures agents to steer for that reason.

Barry Glazer - Legal Advocate for the Urinated Upon

Not knowing the entire scenario here, it sounds to me like there wasn't going to be a contract anyway. I am assuming that it was a standard Maryland Association of REALTORS contract we are talking about. If one of the parties initials off on the addendum concerning home inpsections which says that the buyer can walk away from the contract based upon the findings of the home inspection AND the other party won't agree to that and wants the right to correct any items found during the course of a home inspection and DOESNT initial where the buyer initialled, then the contract is not valid and enforceable. In other words, BOTH parties have to agree to the walk-away clause in the home inspection addendum in order to have a valid, enforceable contract of sale. Instead of getting free legal advise off of the internet, this jilted buyer needs to consult with and hire an attorney.

Frank, I did point that out to the buyer. But not everyone can afford it -- and in any case, what counts as a contract seemed a worthwhile discussion point here.

Captain Obvious makes my point for me. When the stakes are this high, people's passions run high too... THAT is why people hire negotiators, so that they don't ruin their own interests by their pride and stubbornness. I've seen people willing to throw a deal out the window for the most trivial of disagreements because they aren't thinking with their long-term best interests in mind. And to his second point, I'll say again... as a LISTING AGENT... I want the deal that is most likely to settle... because if it doesn't get to the table NOBODY makes any money, not me, not the Seller and not the broker. Period. There is pressure on the BUYER'S AGENT, you're right... and you know what? I don't know ONE agent NOT ONE who recommends professionals who don't get the job done for the best price. Buyers are not fools. They check around and comparison shop. They make their own decisions. And the transactions that most often end up in nasty court cases are the unrepresented buyers and FSBOs because nobody knew what the heck the law was or what the Seller's obligation was. I don't mind being disputed, but I wish that Captain Obvious was a little MORE obvious as to his situation and his prejudices... instead of hiding behind an anonymous cover.

Jamie-

Yes, a worthwhile discussion point. However, you can't say everyone can't afford it. They are purchasing the biggest single item they are going to buy, so they can "afford" to do that. I would hope that if they get into a dispute, then they could see the wisdom of affording an attorney in order to give them some guidence and possibly hold the contract together on a house that they wanted to purchase.

Frank, I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "I can't afford to take this to an attorney." Whether it's the right decision or not, it's the one they're making. (Some folks, on the flip side, say they'd rather work with a real estate attorney than a real estate agent if they're buying a home. To each his own.)

I thought that the agent is supposed to do what a person who hired him said. If the contract wasn't sent, it must be either seller's wish, or agent's unprofessional (to put it mildly) acting.

However, I don't doubt that various "agents", "mediators", "brokers", "emissaries","negotiators" and other "middlemen" are going to try keep everything as complicated as possible. In the best interest of the party they represent, for sure....