When “Creative” Offers Cross the Line: Legal and Ethical Risks for Pennsylvania Real Estate Agents
In today’s competitive market, real estate agents face constant pressure to make their clients’ offers more attractive. That pressure has led to increasingly “creative” strategies, limiting inspection contingencies, selecting financing terms unlikely to be satisfied, or proposing closing dates that everyone quietly expects to extend later. While these tactics may appear effective, they can expose agents to meaningful ethical and legal risks.
Pennsylvania real estate agents do not operate in a vacuum. In addition to state licensing laws, REALTORS® are bound by the National Association of REALTORS® Code of Ethics, which imposes duties that often exceed minimum legal requirements. Those obligations are particularly relevant when agents attempt to engineer contract terms for strategic effect.
The Code of Ethics requires REALTORS® to protect and promote their client’s interests while still treating all parties honestly. When an offer is structured in a way that creates a misleading impression, such as presenting a financing contingency that is unlikely to be met, or a closing date that cannot realistically be achieved, that honesty obligation can be strained. Even if the seller later agrees to an extension, the initial presentation of the offer matters.
The Code also emphasizes competence, transparency, and the duty to avoid misrepresentation or concealment of pertinent facts relating to a transaction. Encouraging a buyer to narrowly restrict inspection rights without clearly explaining the potential consequences, or with the expectation that issues will be renegotiated later, raises concerns under those standards. Ethical issues often arise not because an agent intends to deceive, but because market norms gradually blur professional boundaries.
Another area of heightened risk is the preparation and modification of contract terms. The Code of Ethics expressly cautions REALTORS® against engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and directs them to recommend legal counsel when a party’s interests require it. That provision is especially relevant when agents move beyond the usage and completion of the standardized forms and begin shaping how contingencies function, how deadlines interact, or how contractual failure might be leveraged later in the transaction.
Article 9 of the Code reinforces that agreements must be in writing, in clear and understandable language, and accurately reflect the parties’ obligations. When contingencies are drafted or selected with an unstated expectation that they will not operate as written, that clarity is undermined. If a transaction later fails, those decisions can become focal points in ethics complaints, licensing investigations, or civil litigation.
Importantly, liability does not vanish simply because a deal closes. Post-settlement disputes often arise months or years later, when inspection issues surface or financing assumptions unravel. Emails, texts, and written recommendations explaining why certain contingencies were chosen are frequently scrutinized with hindsight.
The safest course for agents is not to abandon competitive strategies, but to recognize where advocacy ends and legal analysis begins. REALTORS® may explain what provisions generally do, present available options, and discuss market realities, but when strategy turns on legal consequences, referral to counsel protects both the client and the agent.
In a market that rewards speed and creativity, professionalism remains the strongest differentiator. Offers should not only be competitive, but they should also be ethical, defensible, and consistent with the standards that define the REALTOR® profession.
