- Report: #1441695
Complaint Review: Multiple Listing Service -
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Multiple Listing Service
United States
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Multiple Listing Service MLS Breach of contract; denial of state rights Internet
A quick search of the Internet reveals more than a few property owners complaining about the MLSs and realty websites. They object to two things: property scores and marketing histories. It seems odd that the argument continues when the Statute of Frauds resolves the issue. This common law rule prevents nonexistent agreements in real estate brokerage from being proved.
The MLSs and realty sites identify themselves as “service providers” or “media companies” protected by 47 U.S. Code § 230. It’s their best bad argument. In reality, they’re brokers’ assignees bound to the terms of listing contracts. They assume the role (and liability) of an assignee every time they expressly or impliedly assume a broker’s contractual obligations to an owner.
The listing contract constitutes the entire agreement between i) an owner and his broker and ii) an owner and his broker’s assigns. It’s a work contract. Fee for obligations. The owner expects his broker and assigns to perform work as described in the contract while the contract is in force. On the day the contract terminates, the owner expects his broker and assigns to stop work. No circulating or publishing.
For an assignee to use an owner’s inactive marketing data for the assignee’s own profiteering, exposing the owner to financial loss, the assignee needs a “fee for rights” agreement. He needs a writing signed by the owner proving the owner’s relinquishment of state rights and acceptance of risk in exchange for legally sufficient consideration, i.e. cash.
While it may be “standard practice”, “transparent”, and “social” for the MLSs and websites to circulate an owner’s inactive marketing data, and spin up faux appraisals, it’s still a breach of contract. The owner is entitled to a remedy.
