Two Buyers, One House, One Brokerage
Priya and Luis are both represented under signed buyer-broker agreements by the same Las Vegas brokerage. Priya works with licensee Angela; Luis works with licensee Ray; both report to one broker. Priya told Angela in confidence that she will go as high as $520,000 on the Henderson property and is preapproved to $540,000. Luis told Ray his absolute ceiling is $510,000. The property is listed at $515,000. Ray, who knows nothing of Priya's ceiling, prepares a full-price offer for Luis at $515,000 and asks the broker to 'get it in first thing.' Angela hears about it and wants Priya to offer $516,000. Neither buyer has signed any consent to dual representation, and the brokerage has no written consent-to-act policy in place.
1. May the brokerage submit both offers as things stand?
Read the worked answer
Agency in Nevada attaches at the brokerage level, so both buyers are clients of the same firm, not of two unrelated firms. Submitting competing offers from two clients of one brokerage is dual agency in substance, and it requires the informed written consent of both clients.
Without that consent, the firm should not represent both buyers in the same transaction. The clean options, in order of preference:
- Refer one buyer out to another brokerage, with written notice and a documented referral fee if the buyer-broker agreement allows it.
- Withdraw from one side and let that buyer proceed unrepresented, again in writing.
- Obtain written consent to act from both, after full disclosure that the firm cannot advocate for one at the other's expense, cannot pass along one buyer's confidential information, and will present both offers neutrally.
Internal 'designation' of Angela and Ray is not a cure by itself, because the confidential information sits with the same supervising broker, who owes duties to both. If the broker cannot firewall the information credibly, the consent route is illusory and referral is the honest answer.
2. Angela knows Luis's offer is coming. What may she tell Priya, and what must she not do?
Read the worked answer
Angela's duty of loyalty and confidentiality runs to Priya, but Luis is also a client of the firm, and Priya's ceiling of $520,000 is confidential to Priya.
She may not:
- Tell Priya the amount or terms of Luis's offer, because that information belongs to another client of the firm.
- Use Luis's $510,000 ceiling to steer Priya's price, and she must not tell Ray that Priya can go to $520,000.
- Coach Priya to 'beat' a number she learned through the firm.
She may, absent consent, advise Priya to offer what Priya independently believes the property is worth, based on market data and her own preapproval, and she should explain that competing offers exist in general terms if the seller's side has announced that.
With signed consent to act in place, the rules change but do not vanish: the firm must be neutral as to price, present both offers, and refuse to share one client's confidential financial position with the other. The moment Angela's advice depends on Luis's private number, the firm has a conflict it cannot document its way out of.
3. The broker lets both offers go forward anyway. Luis loses the house, and later learns that Priya's side knew his ceiling. What is the likely consequence, and what should have been documented?
Read the worked answer
The firm has exposed itself and its licensees to three kinds of trouble at once: a disciplinary complaint to the Division for acting without required consent, a civil claim by Luis for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and confidentiality, and possible loss of the commission if the transaction is unwound or the damages are offset.
What should have existed in the file:
- A written determination of the conflict, dated before the second offer was prepared.
- Either a referral/withdrawal letter to one buyer, or a signed consent-to-act from both buyers acknowledging the limits on advocacy.
- A confidentiality firewall memo identifying who held what information and who was screened out.
- A showing that neither offer was priced off the other client's confidential ceiling.
The weak point is that a single broker supervised both licensees, so a screen was never realistic. The defensible choice on these facts was to refer one buyer out the day the second buyer asked to see the same property.