Legislative Findings; Chapter as Basis for Private Rights of Actions and Defenses

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Commerce and Trade
  4. Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transactions
  5. Legislative Findings; Chapter as Basis for Private Rights of Actions and Defenses

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. The General Assembly finds, determines, and declares that application of the common law of agency to the relationships between real estate brokers and persons who are sellers, buyers, landlords and tenants of rights and interests in real property has resulted in misunderstandings and consequences that have been contrary to the best interests of the public; the General Assembly further finds, determines, and declares that the real estate brokerage industry has a significant impact upon the economy of the State of Georgia and that it is in the best interests of the public to provide codification of the relationships between real estate brokers and consumers of brokerage services in order to prevent detrimental misunderstandings and misinterpretations of such relationships by both consumers and real estate brokers and thus promote and provide stability in the real estate market. The provisions of this chapter are enacted to govern the relationships between sellers, landlords, buyers, tenants, and real estate brokers and their affiliated licensees to the extent not governed by specific written agreements between and among the parties.
  2. The General Assembly further finds, determines, and declares that the provisions of this chapter are not intended to prescribe or affect the contractual relationships as between real estate brokers and the broker's affiliated licensees.
  3. The provisions of this chapter may serve as a basis for private rights of action and defenses by sellers, buyers, landlords, tenants, and real estate brokers.

(Code 1981, §10-6A-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 376, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 929, § 1.)

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1993, "General Assembly" was substituted for "general assembly" at the first instance of the term in subsection (a).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

No breach of duties.

- Trial court did not err in dismissing the buyers' action against a real estate company and a real estate agent because any broker-client relationship between them and the company and the agent that could have been created when the agent executed the first purchase and sale agreement as both the buyers' agent and the seller's agent ended when that agreement failed due to a low appraisal, and since the buyers engaged a buyer's agent, the relationship between the company, agent, and buyers was that of broker-customer; in the absence of a written agreement between them, the duties of the company and the agent were those set out in the Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transactions Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-5, and although a broker who was engaged only by a seller owed a buyer, who was a "customer" rather than a "client" under the Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-3(8), certain duties in terms of disclosure of information, the buyers' complaint did not aver that the company and agent breached any of those duties. Jones v. Bill Garlen Real Estate, 311 Ga. App. 372, 715 S.E.2d 777 (2011).

Cited in Harrouk v. Fierman, 291 Ga. App. 818, 662 S.E.2d 892 (2008).


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.