Question 30

Yes, because a broker may represent any principal party in a transaction.

A broker can legally represent either the buyer or the seller in a real estate transaction, depending on the agreement made between the parties involved. In this case, since a contract has been signed where the broker agrees to represent the buyer, this arrangement is appropriate.

A) Yes, because a broker may represent any principal party in a transaction.

This option is correct because brokers have the flexibility to represent either buyers or sellers based on the contractual agreement. The laws governing real estate transactions allow for this representation, affirming that the broker is acting within legal boundaries.

B) Yes, but only if the buyer is responsible for paying the broker.

This option is incorrect as it implies that the arrangement is contingent upon the payment responsibility of the buyer. While payment structures can vary, the legality of the broker representing the buyer does not depend solely on who pays the broker.

C) Yes, but only if the broker is not participating in the MLS.

This option is misleading. The broker's participation in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) does not determine their ability to represent a buyer. A broker can represent a buyer regardless of MLS participation, making this statement inaccurate.

D) No, because the laws of agency dictate that the broker always represents the seller.

This option is incorrect as it fundamentally misinterprets agency laws. Brokers can represent either party in a transaction, and there is no legal stipulation that mandates a broker must always represent the seller.

Conclusion

Option A is definitively correct because it aligns with the fundamental principles of real estate agency, which allow brokers to represent buyers or sellers based on mutual agreement. All other options fail to correctly interpret the legal framework governing broker-client relationships in real estate transactions.