Madrid agent wants to act for both sides on an early €147,200 offer

[isa.reed]

Getting this wrong could mean accepting a quick sale while giving away more negotiating information than we realise. We have an early offer of about €147,200 on our Madrid property, and the same agency has proposed dealing with both us and the prospective buyer.

The speed is attractive, but I want to slow down long enough to understand the arrangement. What should be disclosed and agreed in writing, both as a legal requirement in Spain and as an extra safeguard for a cautious seller? I also want to establish who owes duties to whom, how confidential information and competing offers are handled, whether the fees change, how the buyer was qualified, and what response times we can expect.

 

[jazzAndGate]

I would split it exactly that way. For the legal requirements, ask an independent Madrid property lawyer to explain what this arrangement is and what disclosures or consent are required in your circumstances. Don’t rely on the agent’s description of legality.

Separately, my risk-tolerance list would include written fee terms, the named contact for each party, limits on sharing confidential information, and confirmation that you remain free to reject or counter the offer.

 

[LocalTrail]

First establish who actually pays the agent under both parts of the arrangement. Is the fee unchanged, reduced, or supplemented by something from the buyer? The amount and incentive matter.

Also, “qualified buyer” can mean almost anything in conversation. Ask what qualification has occurred and whether the €147,200 offer depends on finance, sale of another property, or any other condition.

 

[gardensAndCorner]

I don’t think acting for both sides automatically makes the offer unusable. It may be convenient if the agent is mainly transmitting information and both parties have independent legal help. The problem is calling that independent negotiation when one person knows each side’s limits.

I would ask the agent to describe, in writing, what they will and will not advise each party about. A vague assurance that everything stays confidential would not satisfy me.

 

[BrightStone]

Offer handling needs its own written process. Will the agent continue arranging viewings and pass on every later offer while this one is considered? Who records the time and terms of each offer? How quickly are you expected to respond?

Speed can help, but it can also stop a seller from finding out whether an early offer reflects the wider interest.

 

[celine.young]

Before focusing only on the buyer relationship, reread the original listing agreement. Check the fee basis, notice or cancellation terms, photography scope and what service was promised after an offer arrives. If the sale falls through, you should know whether marketing resumes automatically, whether new photography or listing work costs extra, and who continues contacting interested buyers.

 

[BrightStone]

That is a good point about the existing agreement. I would also require one communication channel for formal decisions rather than mixing calls and messages from different people. The written disclosure should name the contact handling the seller and, if different, the buyer contact. If it is the same person, that fact should be unmistakable rather than hidden behind the agency’s name.

 

[jazzAndGate]

I’d be careful not to mistake administrative separation for genuine independence. Two named contacts at the same agency may still have aligned financial incentives. That does not necessarily end the discussion, but ask whether information about your minimum acceptable price, urgency or preferred terms will be accessible to anyone advising the buyer. If the answer is unclear, keep those details between you and your independent adviser.

 

[BrightStone]

Agreed. I’d send one short written request covering: the agent’s role for each party, all fees, conflict disclosure, confidentiality boundaries, buyer qualification, conditions attached to €147,200, treatment of competing offers, response time, and support if the transaction falls through. Their ability to answer clearly is itself useful information. I would not consent verbally while those points remain open.

 

[noteTheMap]

One caveat on qualification: the agent may not be able to disclose all of the buyer’s private financial information. You can still ask what has been verified, by whom, and what uncertainty remains, without demanding the buyer’s confidential documents. The important comparison is not just price but how conditional and deliverable the offer appears.

 

[jazzAndGate]

I also wouldn’t accept an artificial same-day deadline merely because it is an early offer. Ask whether the deadline comes from the buyer or is simply the agent’s preferred response time. On the other hand, a seller should give a definite answer date rather than leaving the buyer hanging. A short, documented timetable can preserve momentum without surrendering your chance to obtain independent advice.

 

[romy.lee]

The practical dividing line for me would be whether the agent is acting as a neutral conduit or claiming to negotiate enthusiastically for both parties. The first may be manageable with informed written consent and separate legal advice; the second sounds internally contradictory.

Have the legal position confirmed independently for Madrid, then judge the commercial risk. If the role, fees, confidentiality rules or fall-through support cannot be stated plainly on paper, convenience is not enough reason to proceed.