"Buyers agent" term misleading

With new real estate agent legislation about to come into force next week it raises the awareness that there is  now zero tolerance for  agents/salespeople to make misleading or false statements  and penalties for those that err are considerable.

Not before time in my opinion.

It raises the question is the term used  in the main by residential agents and /or their PA's  when seeking staff, that their continual  reference to "buyers agent required "be construed as being grossly mis leading and misrepresentation under the new Act?

Regardless of what the new Authority and the various compliance authorities view may have on the use of such a terminology the facts remain real estate agents in NZ are  only permitted to accept commission or fees from one of the parties to the sale transaction - the buyer or the seller. In residential sales it is almost always the seller who enters into a legally binding written agreement to pay the agent's  commission when they sign the listing authority.

How can a real estate agent  be seen by the public to be acting in the very best interests of all parties to the sales  transaction while presumeably  representing the interest of both but being paid only by one?

Where does the fidicuiary duty of care duty lie? With the party that is paying the agent ie the seller ,or the purchaser or both?

There is a robust  case  in my humble opinion to raise the question on should NZ be considering adopting the USA and europe model where it is illegal for an agent to represent both  the seller and a buyer in the sale and purchase os residential property.

Readers, imagine the outcry if in a divorce case or defamation case if  legal councel/solicitor was acting on behalf of  both parties and yet only being paid by one!

Logic and commonsense would suggest that would be a ludicrous situation of events ,unethical and just wouln't be allowed to happen . Totally unacceptable to the legal profession and the public alike.

Yet is that reasonable analogy of the systen enshrined in law that allows real estate agents to behave in such a method.

One would have to be completely naive to think that a industry  where sales staff is paid on commission and their successes only ,that, that thin grey line is not crossed and personal information revealed to the buyer so as to effect a sale( still got to put bread on the table in this economic crisis) when such information revealed may not be in the best interest and detrimental of the seller who is paying the agents fees.

Information that might pertain to the sellers financial position, their transfer. matromonial position and so on.

I can't recall where in any other industry that involves  sales and purchases, negotiating,  a advisory input, that the one party represents both the seller and the buyer in the one transaction.

There are very many other advantages for the seller that will not be lost on the astute reader in regrds to the potential for lower selling costs and the possible risk reduction potential for the seller.

The new Act I welcome with open arms in my view unfortunately it stops short of addressing one of the remaining annomalties I perceive that still exists in the manneron who we  serve our seller. Our client who by definition is the person paying the commission.