Talk:Buyer brokerage

Sourcing issue May 2009
For those who like to remove references:

Please consider finding better sources instead of removing them if you do not find the ones given appropriate. Removing citations without replacing them is simply a destructive tendency.
 * Your reference is nothing more than a self service piece from a brokerage. It is not acceptable under reliable sources.  TastyPoutine talk (if you dare)  17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with  TastyPoutine  your only links have been to commercial sites.  Please stop the linkspam. BobKawanaka (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Would a licensed buyers brokerage not be a reliable source for information on Buyers Brokerage. If not, please provide an alternative non commercial reference.Jonfriesen (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The content you're taking issue with has been unsourced until you added a reference to a page on a commercial website that doesn't meet the requirements of a reliable source and which includes a disclaimer that it "does not guarantee this material's accuracy or completeness."
 * And please reconsider using the term "destructive" to describe the contributions of other editors. Flowanda | Talk 04:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The term "destructive" was used to denote undue removal of references. I have noted the ambiguity of this and will refrain from using the term in the future. Jonfriesen (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two sources have been added, one from a US real estate textbook and one from a Canadian article from the Toronto. Those meet standards for editorial control and reliability.  Hopefully that puts the case of EcoRealty spam to bed. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare)  00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This article still reads like a yellow pages ad. Given that the legal concept was created by statute law, and only recently, it is not clear that this so-called buyers agent is anything but a salesperson. I base this on recent conversation with a friend buying a house who mentioned that his "buyers agent" was simply paid a cut of the sellers commissions. This agrees with my own understanding, but is in clear conflict with the lofty words about trust, fiduciary duty and so on. So is this correct legally speaking that there is fiduciary duty even though the agent is payed by the seller? Anyone care to elaborate? 122.192.40.148 (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)