Did they change the aps? Then hand it back after the fact? If this was the case then absolutely the seller needed to be punished. I thought reading this the issue was a new sch B to sign.

Sloan Van Mierlo: It’s also a good lesson for realtors to put their pens away when they have a binding contract. DO NOT touch that in any way. Let it stand. That missing Schedule B did not harm the deal until the front page of the APS was changed.

Rod:

The premise of the ruling was not so much the clauses and details in Schedule A, rather that the Seller agreed to all terms in the initial offer, but included a Schedule B in the ‘acceptance’ reply.

The article does not state clearly, but I have to assume Seller accepted all terms of the offer, and seemingly executed the Confirmation of Acceptance area.

The MLS listing asked that Schedule B be included with all offers, a seeming Brokerage administrative form (banking days, Registry, deposit instruction details, lock box on closing).

In my read,
– The Listing Agent might have insisted that the Offer be completed in full (Schedule B included), before presenting to the Seller,
– Or agree to the offer, but counter-offer (not signing the COA), then including Schedule B. Buyer may have then executed the COA, for a binding contract,
– Or COA executed by Seller on the initial Offer. Done. Deal is now binding. Then deal with the Listing Brokerage administrative items of Schedule B via an Amendment thereafter.

I do wonder if the Seller might actually have a better claim against their own Realtor®?

“Buyer and seller agree that this agreement is binding upon both parties”

have averted the “counter offer” argument?