Omaha daily bee., 1910-02-06

| will sell It to my customer and that
there will be a division OF the commission
by reason OF his bringing It to me before I
had II direct from the owner. or the case
might be aggravated stll more by an
agent presenting to me all the possible
purchases that my customer might make
so that / would be Obliged to share the
commission because of this priority Of the
agent suggesting the property, l have a
very good friend who frequently says to
me, please do not embarrass me by tell
Ing me about that property meaning by
that that If l should tell him OF the prop
erty he would not then be quite so free to
get the property direct, a thing which he
really would prefer to do. You win see
by these nice questions that ethics shade
into courtesy and tina only a desire to
do the right thing by your fellow agent
rather than a rule can properly govern
you.
Another question is like this: An agent
has a customer who buys a lot through
him from another agent and afterward
the same customer buys other lots from
the second agent without the first agents
Intervention. Should the first agent be
paid a commission on the later sales?
AllHhtI-ANOs TOT tie alllHlt lNuSNl NiiaN
there must be a stopping point and II the
first agent could claim commission for oil
the lots sold to his customer without be-
ing limited to time or to number 1t would
be impossible to know when Il was safe to
sell a customer for fear some agent would
make claim to half the commission,
Another asks what is the proper attitude
to an agent who comes with a customer
and pounds the price. should you pay a
man for beating you down? The answer
would look plain-no-and yet the fact is
that this is constantly done by agents. l
remember a large property owner here who
used to strongly object. as he said, to pay
ing agents for beating down his price. Yet
In those days when this was done there
would have been very little property sold
IL the agent had not pounded the price.
An agent should have some regard for the
man who Is paying him for his services,
and yet it is difficult to say where the line
should be drawn as to his right to get
the price reduced in order TO make q sale.
Another presents a very interesting actual
experience as follows: Agent No, l had
property on which the price was 10000
Agent No. 2 had a customer to buy the
property who offered $4,000. The first
agent said that that would not be con-
sidered. That nothing would be considered
less than $4,000. No. 2 asked II he got
his customer up to $4,000 would the other
agent submit 1t, He said no. Agent No.
2 got his customer to offer $4,000, The
first agent said It was no use, he would
not submit It. Later the customer and the
agent got together. The customer sub
mitted the $4,000 and the agent submitted
1t to the owner. The owner accepted 1t.
This involves the point whether an agent
who has charge Of a piece of property is
obliged to give to another agent the most
favorable terms and the best opportunity
to buy it or whether he has a right to hold
the second agent to a higher price and
harder terms than he would seek to get
If the business was being done by him
direct with the customer. This also in
wolves the question whether an agent IL
obliged to divide commission with another
agent on a piece OF property that he was
sure be could sell himself. This is another
case where the ethics OF the business shade
into the courtesy Of the business. / see no
reason why ar agent who is very sure
that he can sell a piece of property hin
self should give 1t to another agent to sell,
or, IL applied to, should allow another
agent to offer It. 1 think the frank way