Harry Krause wrote:
Ahhh...brokers.

Stereotypes are mental shorthand for the intellectually inept.

Be sure to include this broker in your assessment: (from the website
referenced above)

"According to Caputo, Dyall did this because he did not want to share
the sales commission with Caputo's broker. Dyall even secretly offered
Caputo's broker a few thousand bucks to keep him quiet. Apparently, Tom
H. at BoatsMiami.com was unwilling to break their high ethical
standards for a few bucks."

Funny thing about the above statement- "A few thousand bucks" is all
that the selling broker's portion of the sales commission on a $125,000
boat amounts to.

Don't know whether FLA is typically 50/50 or 60/40; but assuming 50/50
each of the brokerage companies involved would collect $6250 in
commission. The companies in turn would typically split the commission
with the broker, so by selling this $125,000 boat the selling broker
would ordinarily only make $3125- not far off that "few thousand" he
was allegedly offered. $3125 is no more than a week's wages by many
modern standards for a decent-paying job.

Don't forget that there are two sides to every story. :-)

This is funny because the buyer hired a voodoo priestess to curse the
broker and the boat and because he went to all the time and trouble to
build a website. But there's almost certainly some facts that the
seller has chosen to delete or obscure.

The part that bothers me, a bit, is the portion of the website where
the jilted buyer states he made "A full price offer, by
telephone.....". His own broker should have advised him that you cannot
make a legally or even ethically binding offer by telephone.
The listing broker is an employee of the seller. If I were going to
approach a seller and I had a written contract with a deposit to offer
on one hand and "Some guy called on the phone to say he'd take it...."
on the other- I'd steer the seller toward the written deal with the
money down every time.

Possible scenario: (not saying it was *the* scenario, just a coulda
been). 1)Buyer's broker calls sellers broker to say "We like the boat,
and we'll take it at the listing price."
2) No written offer on the table, yet. 3) Seller's broker calls a
prospect that he has been trying to close on the boat for a week to
tell him he is about to lose the boat to a full price offer. 4)
Seller's broker's prospect scurries over to seller's broker's office
and executes a written offer for $126,000. 5) Seller's broker calls the
boat owner to ask him to come over to the office and review an offer.
6) Whie the seller is en route, a faxed offer for $125,000 and a faxed
copy of a check arrives from the jilted buyer's broker. The faxed offer
and the faxed check (not actually valid or binding until received at
the office) is for $1000 less than the offer with actual deposit in
hand rather than "this check is in the mail".

Moral dilemna, as a completely ethical broker in the employ of the
seller- what would *you* do? Recommend your seller take the lower offer
because that buyer gave a verbal over-the-phone indication that he
would buy the boat before another prospect made the first legally
binding written offer with a deposit?

Not saying that's how this thing came down- but it easily could have
been about like that and a rush to judgment based on stereotypes and a
hilariously funny one-sided web site would be a mistake,