The Sign That Stayed Up
A Dartmouth brokerage lists a commercial mixed-use building at 88 Portland Street. The listing agreement is signed 1 March for six months. The brokerage erects a large 'For Sale - Call Harbourview Realty' sign on the corner. In April the owner tells the brokerage the sign is attracting nuisance calls and asks that it be removed; the brokerage removes it. In May a competing brokerage, without permission, puts its own smaller 'For Sale' sign on the same property after the owner privately mentions he might relist. The original brokerage's salesperson, Tanya, sees the competitor's sign and, annoyed, posts on a local business Facebook group: 'Heads up - 88 Portland is listed with us until September. Anyone dealing with another agent on this one is wasting their time. Call me.' The post includes the property address and the owner's first name. A member of the group screenshots it and sends it to the competing brokerage.
1. Address the sign issues: the original sign's removal and the competitor's sign. What are the advertising and authority problems?
Read the worked answer
Original sign. Advertising must be authorized by the seller and accurate. The owner asked for removal in April, and the brokerage complied - that was correct. Once removed, the brokerage must also ensure no stale advertising (online listings, flyers, the sign itself) continues to suggest the property is actively marketed in a way the owner has forbidden. Keeping advertising up against the owner's instruction is a breach of the duty to follow lawful instructions and can misrepresent the property's status.
Competitor's sign. The competing brokerage has no listing agreement and no authority from the owner to advertise the property. Placing a 'For Sale' sign on someone else's property without the owner's consent, and implying a listing relationship that does not exist, is misleading advertising and a trespass-type interference. Tanya's brokerage should not retaliate on the sign; the owner should be told, and the owner (or the brokerage on the owner's behalf) should demand the competitor remove it. Tanya has no authority to negotiate with the competitor directly.
Key principle: advertising rights flow from the seller's authorization. Neither brokerage may advertise beyond what the owner permitted.
2. Assess Tanya's Facebook post against advertising and conduct standards. What should she have done instead?
Read the worked answer
The post fails on several counts.
Accuracy and authority. Tanya states the property is 'listed with us until September.' That may be true under the six-month agreement, but she posts it publicly without confirming the owner wants that publicized - and the owner had already objected to attention. Advertising must be authorized, and the brokerage name and its role should be clear. A personal social-media post mixing brokerage business with a warning to 'call me' blurs who is advertising.
Confidentiality and privacy. Naming the owner and the address in a public group ties a private business matter to an identifiable person. Even if the address is public, combining it with the owner's name and a dispute is unnecessary and harmful.
Conduct toward competitors. 'Anyone dealing with another agent is wasting their time' is disparaging and could deter other licensees from bringing buyers - an interference with the owner's interest in a broad market. It reads as a threat rather than a professional correction.
What to do instead: report the unauthorized sign to the brokerage's managing broker, notify the owner, and let the owner or brokerage send a written demand to the competitor. If Tanya wants to advertise, use brokerage-approved materials that are accurate, authorized, and identify the brokerage. Keep disputes out of public forums.