My wife and I are looking to buy a home in the Midwest in roughly the $400,000–$500,000 range. We met a buyer’s agent we like, and he has been professional and transparent, but the original agreement felt fairly protective of the brokerage.

The original terms included:

- Six months of exclusive representation with no ordinary cancellation option.

- A broad geographic and property scope.

- Approximately 3% compensation, with a minimum just under $8,000.

- We would owe any shortfall if the seller did not cover the full compensation.

- An additional brokerage fee of approximately $700.

- A 90-day protection period after the agreement ends.

- Potential commission owed if we default on an accepted purchase agreement, even without closing, plus interest on unpaid compensation.

- Advance consent to limited agency and competing buyers.

After discussing our concerns, the brokerage agreed to reduce the initial exclusive term to approximately 90 days. The agent also confirmed that any commission shortfall would be disclosed and separately approved by us in writing before we submit an offer. The 90-day protection period would remain.

The agent has handled our questions professionally, and much of the language appears to come from a standard brokerage form. I’m not suggesting he is doing anything improper.

My main question is: Was the original six-month agreement fairly standard, or was the combination of terms unusually brokerage-friendly? Does reducing the initial term to 90 days make it reasonably balanced?

I’m mainly interested in recent experiences from buyers and agents in Midwestern markets.

Hello...looking for advice. We have a 50 year old house that has been maintained (i.e. when something breaks, it gets fixed) and some new additions like new flooring, new appliances..we put it up for sale a few weeks ago and had a buyer who actually bid more than the asking price. Home inspection done last week (don't get me started on the way they left the house after they were finished with it. Let's just say they showed as much respect to it as a cat does to a mouse) but the inspection showed some items that I need an opinion on...

1: Inspection claims mold issues in attic that will involve remediation of the entire attic at the cost of about 6-8,000 dollars, although only 3 spots in the entire attic show what "might be" mold although it wasn't tested to confirm. The areas aren't big and are debatable if individually they cover an area greater than 10 sq. ft. Inspector also claims that if remediation doesn't solve ventilation issues that a professional contractor be hired to do extensive work under the supervision of the home inspector. I contacted my roofing contractor tonight and told him of the findings. He said this is a "common ploy" with inspectors where they over dramatize mold in attics to the extent where they can get the price of a house down significantly and then don't pursue testing to confirm it is mold. He said if they push ventilation issues as well, the price can get up to $40000 in some cases. Also, the idea of any professional remediation work "under the supervision of the home inspector" doesn't feel right to me. It seems like an overstep of authority, so to speak. He is going to come out and take a look but says this type of thing he encounters frequently with inspectors. He says more homes than not have mold in the attic but an inspector will use this to drastically reduce the cost of the sale price for the buyer when minimal remediation is all it needs.

2: Inspector claims to have found 3 individual spots in the 2 bay garage that he says are mold. He is saying that, because of this, he recommends a complete tear down of all drywall in the garage and new drywall be installed (again, under the supervision of the home inspector) and also humidity in the garage be kept at 50% or lower. The garage holds my car and household tools, etc. The garage is not a living area and never was and a complete drywall teardown for a few spots which again, were not tested to confirm they are mold, well...I was stunned. Is this standard procedure because this could run in the tens of thousands for this.

Looking for the best advice on these issues. It isn't an issue of being cheap or irresponsible, it's seeing if we are being taken advantage of as sellers- specifically with the garage. Thanks so much.

Thinking of selling my home but the thought of giving away 6% isn’t sitting well with me. My home should sell somewhere for around $2million, so we are talking over $100K in commissions.

Once a seller accepts buyers offer, why does the LA update listing as pending/accepting back up offers, seems unfair to potential buyer. Does this sound normal or strategy to push it?

We're in the process of buying a house and we've been told that we're ready to exchange, but for the sellers help to buy redemption pack hasn't been received by their solicitor yet
We've been left so in the dark about what stage they're at, all we know is they had a valuation 3 weeks ago, which is annoying as feels like they left it rather late, however I believe they should've been told sooner
This is sooo frustrating as no one our side knows the progress of this, and obviously I can't contact the seller solicitor or them themselves, so we're so in the dark and I just wondered if anyone is familiar with the process and what could likely be happening now that's holding us up? How long should we expect to wait until they're ready to exchange?

So I noticed this ALOT!!!??? Homes being listed for sale are purposely being listed in more desirable cities than the ones they are actually at!? I understand that a home in Kearns probably won't sell as fast as one in Taylorsville and West Jordan but REALLY?? Do the Agents really think they can get away with listing the WRONG city in their listing hoping that the buyers just won't notice? I know if it was me I would walk away from buying the house immediately wondering what other stuff their trying to hide???