1. A listing broker representing a seller does not inform an interested buyer of his existing agency relationship or provide any agency disclosure form. Together, the broker and buyer looked at many properties, some listed by the broker and other entered into the MLS by other firms, and the broker began to advise the buyer. Based on this advice; the buyer purchased one of the properties listed by another firm. There turned out to be many undisclosed defects, which would have been revealed with good due diligence. Under the common law of agency, has the broker committed any improper act?

1. Yes; honestly and disclosure of material facts known to the broker are duties to any party in a transaction, and as a participant in the MLS the broker should have known about the defects in the property he was recommending
2. Yes; because there was no agency disclosure and the broker advised the buyer, an implied agency relationship may have developed, and the broker should have advised the buyer to use outside service to ensure that the property was in good condition
3. No; the property purchased by the buyer was not the brokers listing. Therefore, the broker could not have known or be expected to know of latent defects, nor did he have any obligation to recommend due diligence to buyer he was not representing
4. No; since the broker did not enter into a written buyers agency contract with the buyer the should not have any expectation that the brokers advise was in the buyers best interest