Question 34

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

A broker can indeed 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 for the broker to represent the buyer, the arrangement is appropriate.

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

This option is correct because brokers have the legal ability to represent either buyers or sellers in real estate transactions. The signed contract signifies that the buyer has engaged the broker's services, making this arrangement valid and appropriate.

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

While it is true that buyers can pay brokers for their services, this option is incorrect as it implies that payment is a prerequisite for representation. Brokers can represent buyers regardless of who pays their commission, as long as there is a signed agreement in place.

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

This option is misleading because a broker's participation in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) does not determine their ability to represent a buyer. The representation is based on the contract, not on MLS involvement, making this statement incorrect.

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

This statement is false; while brokers often represent sellers, they are also legally allowed to represent buyers. The laws of agency do not restrict a broker to only representing sellers, and the signed contract confirms that the broker is representing the buyer in this case.

Conclusion

The correct answer is A, as it accurately reflects the legal standing of brokers in real estate transactions. Options B, C, and D fail to recognize the broker's ability to represent buyers and the implications of signed agreements, thereby making them incorrect.