link to home page
August 2001
current issue top ten stories discussions search
contact us
resources

Ruling

The hearing panel reminded REALTOR® A that the pertinent fact being considered was not his opinion at the time of the previous sale as compared to his opinion now, but rather his written "guarantee" to Buyer B and his current failure to make good his written commitment. It was the conclusion of the hearing panel that REALTOR® A had engaged in misrepresentation and was in violation of Article 2.

back to case study

 

Buyers & sellers, visit www.texasrealestate.com.
REALTORS®, visit www.tar.org.