There are quite a few real estate agents who claim that their job is to provide service to their clients.
others, And I am among them, Claim that of course we are service providers (real estate brokerage service), But first and foremost the broker represents his client in the transaction.
And why is the distinction between "service provider" and "representative" important?
This is because if the broker is considered only a service provider, From this it can be assumed that he can provide service to both parties to the transaction (both to the seller and the buyer), And seemingly there is no problem with that, However, If the broker is considered to represent his client in the transaction, It is important to distinguish who he represents in the transaction - the seller or the buyer.
It is not for nothing that there are quite a few countries in the world that have stipulated in the law that in order to protect the consumer, The same broker must not represent the 2 The parties to the transaction, After all, there is an abysmal conflict of interest between the wishes / needs of the seller and the wishes / needs of the buyer, Therefore when one broker represents a seller in a transaction, Another broker represented the buyer in the same transaction.
Now, When the distinction between "service provider" and "representative" is clear, It is understandable why the dual representation approach (which is a result of the broker's view as a service provider only) is accepted (still) in Israel, Compared to the US practice of adopting the individual representation approach (which is a result of the broker's view as representing a party to the transaction).