Question 124

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. In this case, since a contract has been signed for the broker to represent the buyer, it is an appropriate arrangement.

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

This option is correct as it acknowledges the broker's ability to represent the buyer. Real estate laws allow brokers to work for either the buyer or the seller, provided there is a mutual agreement in place, which is confirmed by the signed contract in this scenario.

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

This option presents an incomplete understanding of agency relationships. While it is true that brokers can be paid by buyers, it is not a requirement for the arrangement to be appropriate. A broker can represent a buyer regardless of who pays their commission, as long as there is a contractual agreement.

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

This choice is incorrect because participation in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) does not affect the legality of a broker representing a buyer. A broker can represent a buyer whether or not they are involved in the MLS, as long as a proper agency agreement is established.

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

This statement is inaccurate. The laws of agency do not dictate that brokers must represent sellers exclusively. Brokers can represent buyers if there is a contract stating such an arrangement, which is the case here.

Conclusion

The correct answer is A, as it accurately reflects the legal framework allowing brokers to represent either party in a real estate transaction. All other options either misinterpret the agency relationship or impose unnecessary conditions that do not apply to the situation described.