November 02, 2021

Saddling Up With Dual Agents

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

Horse sales can be complex, time consuming, and involve a significant amount of work on the part of a trainer or other knowledgeable individual to facilitate the transaction and help ensure that both buyer and seller adequately understand the transaction and the horse involved. And for this investment of time, hard work, and industry knowledge, that person - the "agent" - typically receives a commission based in most cases on a percentage of the overall purchase price of the horse. Agents can be invaluable in ensuring that the transaction goes smoothly and that both buyer and seller get what they bargained for and are satisfied with the transaction.

However, problems can arise when a single person serves as an agent on behalf of both buyer and seller, a situation known as "dual agency." Dual agency presents an inherent conflict of interest, and while many dual agents navigate those conflicts appropriately and with integrity, some do not, leading to adverse outcomes where the interests of buyer, seller, and in some cases both are not properly represented. Sometimes the fact that an agent is acting as a dual agent is unknown to one or both sides of the transaction. The adverse outcomes can be financial, such as undisclosed kickbacks or even different prices being negotiated with the seller and the buyer, with the agent pocketing the difference, or problems with the quality or value of the horse itself. The issue became increasingly problematic at the beginning of the twenty-first century, leading some states to pass legislation to address the issue head-on.

Several states, including Florida, California, and Kentucky, enacted laws as part of their efforts to regulate the sale and purchase of horses that addressed the potential conflict created by dual agency in equine sales and the problems it could create. In addition to requiring disclosure of the purchase price on the bill of sale, these regulations require the disclosure of dual agency relationships, to try to ensure that all parties are aware that the "agent" is representing both sides in the transaction.

In Florida, for example, a person may not act as a dual agent in an equine sale without:

  1. The prior knowledge of both the Purchaser and the Owner; and
  2. Written consent of both the Purchaser and the Owner.1

In addition, a person who acts as an agent in an equine purchase transaction—whether on behalf of the buyer or seller, or serving as dual agent—may not receive a commission valued over $500.00 unless:

  1. The agent receiving, and the person or entity making, the payment disclose in writing the payment to both the Purchaser and Owner; and
  2. Each principal for whom the agent is acting consents in writing to the payment.2

In order to be enforceable, any contract or agreement for the payment of a commission for a dual agent must specifically be in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.3

Upon request by their principals, dual agents in Florida must also furnish certain information, including copies of all financial records and financial documents in their possession or control pertaining to the transaction - with a limited exception for work product used internally to evaluate the subject horse.4

Agents who fail to comply with the above provisions may find their commissions contracts unenforceable or that they are subject to liability under statutes like Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.5 Bottom line, when it comes to dual agents, full and fair disclosures benefits everyone: buyer, seller, and agent.

1 Fla. Admin Code Ann. R. 5H-26.003(2).

2 Fla. Admin Code Ann. R. 5H-26.003(3).

3 Fla. Admin Code Ann. R. 5H-26.003(7).

4 Fla. Admin Code Ann. R. 5H-26.003(4).

5 Violations of FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. R. 5H-26.001-26.004, are deemed unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter 501, Part II, Fla. Stat. See FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. R. 5H-26.003(13).

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Greenberg Traurig

Data transfers from a controller in the EEA, to another controller in the EEA, to a processor outside of the EEA

By David A. Zetoony Greenberg Traurig August 02 , 2022

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Workplace Safety Review: Episode 28 | Interview with Nadine Mancini

By Michael T. Taylor Greenberg Traurig August 01 , 2022

In this episode, Mike Taylor and Adam Roseman talk to Nadine Mancini, General Counsel for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in Washington, D.C.

3rd Circuit Issues Practical Death Knell to Nationwide FLSA Collective Actions Involving Employers Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in Circuit

By James N. Boudreau Greenberg Traurig July 29 , 2022

On July 26, 2022, in a win for employers, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion in Christa Fischer, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., et al, No. 21-1683, affirming a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that refused to allow two opt-in plaintiffs to join a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because the proposed plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime had no connection to Pennsylvania.

More From Contracts

Massachusetts Enacts CROWN Act, Prohibiting Discrimination Against Protective Hairstyles

By Samia M. Kirmani Jackson Lewis P.C. August 04 , 2022

Employers should review their policies, handbooks, and training materials to ensure compliance with the new law.

Bristol-Myers Decision Applies to Plaintiffs in FLSA Collective Actions, Third Circuit Holds

By David R. Golder Jackson Lewis P.C. August 02 , 2022

Joining two other circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that Bristol-Myers does apply to FLSA collective actions, and therefore, federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over claims of out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs in putative collective actions, other than in the states in which the employer has its principal place of business or is incorporated.

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Unlawful, Michigan High Court Holds, Overruling Precedent

By Marlo Johnson Roebuck Jackson Lewis P.C. August 01 , 2022

This opinion, with two justices dissenting, comes approximately two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Featured Stories