Multiple-offer ethics: Article 1 and Standard of Practice 1-15

About this material

This is continuing-education style material on the ethics of handling multiple offers. It is written for listing agents, buyer’s agents, brokers and real estate instructors. Allow about 60 minutes to read it, work through the case studies and take the self-check.

This material has not been approved for continuing-education credit by any state or association. Instructors are welcome to use it as a reading or discussion resource, with a link to this page.

Using this in a class. The sections build on each other: the Code’s framework first (sections 1 to 6), then state law and agency (7 and 8), then the practical tools (9 to 11). A one-hour session works well as a 20-minute walkthrough of sections 1 to 4, 20 minutes on the case studies in small groups, and 20 minutes on the self-check and discussion. Ask participants to bring their own state’s rule on sharing offer terms, and compare it with the states discussed in section 7. The case studies are drawn from published regulatory material and are suitable for open discussion; the discussion questions after them have no single right answer.

Learning objectives. After completing this material, you should be able to:

1. Explain the two duties in Article 1 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics and how they apply when a listing receives more than one offer.
2. State what Standard of Practice 1-15 requires, what it permits, and what it does not address.
3. Describe the obligations to present offers under Standards of Practice 1-6 and 1-7, including written confirmation of presentation.
4. Identify state rules that restrict disclosure of offer terms more tightly than the Code, and how they affect escalation clauses and dual agency.
5. Apply these standards to case studies drawn from published state regulatory actions and guidance.

1. The ethical framework: Article 1

Article 1 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics sets up the tension at the center of every multiple-offer situation. When representing a client as an agent, a REALTOR® pledges to protect and promote the client’s interests; that obligation is primary, but it does not relieve the REALTOR® of the obligation to treat all parties honestly.

Two duties, then, run at once. The listing agent works to get the seller the best price and terms, which can mean creating competition. The same agent must be honest with every buyer and every buyer’s agent, none of whom are clients. NAR’s own guidance on multiple offers acknowledges that there is no single, formulaic way to handle these situations, but there are principles, and the rest of this material works through them.

Two limits frame everything that follows. First, the Code binds REALTORS®, members of NAR; state license law binds every licensee. Second, where state law or regulation is stricter than the Code, the stricter rule governs. Several states are stricter on exactly the questions this material covers.

Sources: NAR, 2026 Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice; Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual, Appendix IX (January 1, 2026).

2. Standard of Practice 1-15: disclosing the existence of offers

Standard of Practice 1-15 provides that REALTORS®, in response to inquiries from buyers or cooperating brokers, shall, with the sellers’ approval, disclose the existence of offers on the property. Where disclosure is authorized, they shall also disclose, if asked, whether offers were obtained by the listing licensee, another licensee in the listing firm, or a cooperating broker.

Read it closely, because each element matters:

• It is triggered by a question. The standard does not require a listing agent to announce other offers unprompted.
• It depends on the seller. Without the seller’s approval, the agent may not disclose that other offers exist. With it, the agent must, when asked.
• It covers existence and source. The second sentence exists so buyers can learn whether an offer came from inside the listing firm, where conflicts of interest are most likely.
• It says nothing about price or terms. Whether those may be shared is governed by the seller’s instructions and by state law, not by SOP 1-15.

On price and terms, NAR’s guidance is explicit that sellers are not bound by the Code and may “shop” offers, and that brokers may do the same unless prohibited by law or regulation. It also sets a fairness expectation: if a seller directs the agent to tell offerors about other offers, all offerors or their representatives should be told. Disclosing to one buyer and not the others is the pattern that generates complaints.

3. Keeping buyer’s agents informed

Article 3 of the Code calls on REALTORS® to cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client’s best interest. NAR’s multiple-offer guidance reads that duty practically: implicit in cooperation is forthright sharing of information about cooperative transactions, and much of the frustration in multiple-offer situations comes from cooperating brokers not knowing the status of offers they submitted. Listing brokers should make reasonable efforts to keep cooperating brokers informed, and buyer’s brokers should do the same when their seller-clients’ counter-offers are pending.

“Informed” does not mean told everything. It means told what the seller has authorized, when it changes, and at the same time as everyone else. A deadline that moves, a request for final offers, a decision: each is a status every cooperating broker is waiting on. Silence after a decision is the most common source of the feeling, if not the fact, of unfair treatment.

NAR’s guidance ends its discussion of multiple offers with a reminder that only one offer can result in a sale, so one or more buyers will be disappointed. Little can be done about the disappointment; fair and honest treatment, with prompt and open communication, makes it far more likely they will feel they were treated fairly.

4. Presenting offers: Standards of Practice 1-6 and 1-7

Standard of Practice 1-6 requires REALTORS® to submit offers and counter-offers objectively and as quickly as possible. “Objectively” matters as much as “quickly”: presenting a competing offer with a shrug, or burying a strong offer in a stack, can breach the standard even if every offer technically reaches the seller.

Standard of Practice 1-7 adds three things. Listing brokers must continue to submit all offers and counter-offers to the seller until closing, unless the seller has waived that obligation in writing. When a cooperating broker who submitted an offer asks in writing, the listing broker must provide, as soon as practical, written affirmation that the offer was submitted, or written notice that the seller waived presentation. And REALTORS® must recommend that sellers get legal advice before accepting a later offer, except where acceptance is contingent on the earlier contract ending, which is how a properly drafted backup offer works.

State license laws often impose parallel duties. Ohio’s law, for example, lists presenting purchase offers to the client in a timely manner among a seller’s agent’s duties; Case study 1 shows what happened when a broker didn’t.

5. Misrepresentation and “phantom” offers

The clearest ethical line in a multiple-offer situation is also the simplest: an agent may not claim an offer exists when it does not, or misstate the number, price or terms of offers that do. Doing so breaches Article 1’s duty to treat all parties honestly and Article 2’s prohibition on exaggeration, misrepresentation and concealment of pertinent facts, and it is misrepresentation under state license laws.

Subtler versions are more common than outright invention. Describing a verbal “expression of interest” as an offer; implying a competing offer is higher than it is; saying “we have multiple offers” when one of them has been withdrawn; or letting a buyer’s agent believe a deadline is firm when the seller has already decided. Each creates pressure out of something that isn’t true.

The practical safeguards are the same ones that protect against every other complaint: disclose only what the seller has authorized, in writing, identically to every buyer’s agent, and keep the offers themselves in the file. An agent who can show the offers never has to argue about whether they existed.

6. The buyer’s side: Standard of Practice 1-13

Buyer’s agents have their own obligation in multiple-offer situations. Standard of Practice 1-13, amended effective June 5, 2025, lists what a buyer’s representative must advise buyer clients of, including the possibility that sellers or sellers’ representatives may not treat the existence, terms or conditions of offers as confidential unless confidentiality is required by law, regulation, or a confidentiality agreement between the parties.

In practice, this means a buyer should never assume their offer stays private. Where state law does not prohibit it, and the seller wants it, the buyer’s price may be shown to competing buyers. Buyer’s agents should say so before the offer is written, and should advise clients that decisions about offer strategy are theirs to make.

7. When state law is stricter

Most states have no rule on sharing offer terms beyond the general duties of honesty and fair dealing, so the Code’s framework is the practical standard. Several are stricter:

• North Carolina. Since 2008, Commission Rule 21 NCAC 58A .0115 has provided that a broker shall not disclose the price or other material terms of a party’s offer to a competing party without the express authority of the offering party. The Commission has described shopping offers as strictly prohibited.
• Wisconsin. Wis. Admin. Code REEB 24.12 bars a licensee from disclosing the terms of one prospective buyer’s offer to another; the existence of offers may be disclosed.
• Minnesota. Minn. Stat. 82.71 bars disclosing an offer’s terms to another prospective buyer before the offer has been presented to the seller.
• Missouri and Ohio. Both limit what a dual or limited agent may disclose; Missouri’s statute specifically bars a dual agent from disclosing the terms of prior offers or counter-offers without consent (RSMo 339.750(5)).

An agent licensed in one of these states cannot rely on a seller’s authorization alone. In North Carolina, the seller can authorize disclosure of the existence of offers, but not another buyer’s price; only that buyer can. Current rules and sources for every state are in our state-by-state disclosure rules.

8. Dual and designated agency

The confidentiality problem is sharpest when one firm, or one agent, is on both sides. A dual agent knows every offer and owes confidentiality to both clients, so the agent can advocate for neither on price and cannot use one buyer’s offer to help another. Designated agency, where the firm appoints a separate agent for each client, reduces the conflict but does not remove it: the two agents must keep each client’s confidential information apart.

North Carolina’s rules for designated dual agency, for example, prohibit the designated agent for one party from disclosing to the other side, without the client’s permission, that the party may agree to a price or terms other than those offered, the party’s motivation, or information the party has identified as confidential. Case study 2 applies that rule.

9. Escalation clauses

An escalation clause promises to pay a set amount more than a competing offer, usually up to a cap. It raises two ethical questions.

Proving the trigger. To apply the clause, the escalating buyer usually expects to see the competing offer. That is disclosure of another buyer’s terms. In North Carolina, the Commission has said this requires the competing buyer’s express authority under Rule A .0115, that an attorney-drafted clause does not remove that requirement, and that disclosing the competing terms without it would subject a licensee to possible disciplinary action. The Commission discourages escalation clauses, but does not prohibit them.

Who may draft them. Both the North Carolina and Texas commissions have said licensees may not draft escalation clauses, because doing so is the unauthorized practice of law. Texas grounds this in TREC Rule 537.11(b)(5).

A listing agent who receives an escalation clause should agree with the seller how it will be treated (at its cap, by requesting highest and best from everyone, or after legal review) and tell every buyer’s agent the same thing.

10. Documentation as an ethical practice

Most of the standards above are proven, or disproven, by records. A listing agent who can produce the seller’s written disclosure instructions, every offer with the time it arrived, every notice sent to buyer’s agents, the comparison presented to the seller, and the seller’s written decision can answer almost any complaint. An agent who cannot is left with recollection, and Case study 1 shows how that ends.

Good records also protect buyers and sellers. They let a buyer’s agent confirm presentation under SOP 1-7, let a seller see that every offer was considered, and let a broker supervise consistently.

11. A practical protocol

The standards above reduce to a sequence a listing agent can follow on every listing:

1. Before listing: explain to the seller how multiple offers may be handled and get written instructions on what may be disclosed. Check whether your state requires more, such as the offering buyer’s consent.
2. When interest arrives: answer questions about other offers only as authorized, the same way for everyone, and disclose the source of offers when asked if disclosure is authorized.
3. When offers arrive: acknowledge each in writing and present each to the seller promptly and objectively, including offers from your own firm.
4. If the seller wants better offers: tell every offeror at once, in writing, with a firm deadline.
5. At decision time: get the seller’s decision in writing, notify everyone promptly, and recommend legal advice before accepting any later offer that isn’t contingent on the first contract ending.
6. Throughout: keep the records, and give written confirmation of presentation whenever a cooperating broker asks in writing.

Buyer’s agents have a shorter list: explain to buyer clients, before the offer is written, that offers may not be kept confidential; confirm the state’s rules; and ask in writing for confirmation that the offer was presented.

12. Case studies

The following cases are drawn from published state regulatory actions and guidance. Names have been removed.

Discussion questions. In Case study 1, which records would have changed the outcome? In Case study 2, how should a firm structure designated agency so that confidential information stays with each agent? In Case study 3, how could the listing agent have met the seller’s goal of competition without disclosing anyone’s terms? In Case study 4, what should a buyer’s agent confirm, and put in writing, before advising a client to make offers on several homes at once? Across all four, which single habit (written instructions, same-time notice, or records) would have prevented the most harm, and why?

13. Self-check

Answer each question, then open it to check your answer.

1. Under Standard of Practice 1-15, a listing agent must disclose the existence of other offers:

   Answer: When a buyer or cooperating broker asks, and only with the seller’s approval.

2. True or false: SOP 1-15 requires the listing agent to disclose the price of the highest offer if asked.

   Answer: False. SOP 1-15 addresses the existence and source of offers, not their price or terms.

3. If a seller authorizes disclosing that other offers exist, NAR’s guidance says the agent should tell:

   Answer: All offerors or their representatives, not just some of them.

4. A cooperating broker asks in writing whether their offer was presented. Under SOP 1-7, the listing broker must:

   Answer: Provide, as soon as practical, written affirmation that it was presented, or written notice that the seller waived presentation.

5. Are sellers bound by the Code of Ethics?

   Answer: No. Sellers are not bound by the Code; REALTORS® are.

6. Since June 2025, SOP 1-13 requires buyer’s representatives to tell buyer clients about what possibility?

   Answer: That sellers or their representatives may not treat the existence, terms or conditions of offers as confidential unless law, regulation or a confidentiality agreement requires it.

7. In North Carolina, what does Rule 21 NCAC 58A .0115 require before a broker shares one buyer’s price with a competing buyer?

   Answer: The express authority of the buyer who made the offer.

8. Does an attorney-drafted escalation clause remove the need for that consent in North Carolina?

   Answer: No. The Commission has said the listing firm still needs the competing buyer’s express authority.

9. A designated agent for the seller tells the buyer’s designated agent that the seller will accept any price over asking. What is the problem?

   Answer: It discloses confidential information about the seller’s position without permission, which North Carolina’s rules on designated dual agency prohibit.

10. What record best defends a listing agent against a claim that an offer was never presented?

    Answer: Written, dated evidence of presentation, such as the seller’s acknowledgment or the SOP 1-7 affirmation, kept in the transaction file.

References

1. National Association of REALTORS®, 2026 Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice (Article 1; Standards of Practice 1-6, 1-7, 1-13, 1-15).
2. NAR, Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual, Part 4, Appendix IX: Presenting and Negotiating Multiple Offers (January 1, 2026).
3. North Carolina Real Estate Commission, “Be Prompt, Fair and Honest When Handling Multiple Offers” (2017).
4. North Carolina Real Estate Commission, “The Pitfalls of Using Escalation Clauses” (2021, 2022).
5. North Carolina Real Estate Commission, “Case Study: Dual Agency” (2024).
6. North Carolina Real Estate Commission, disciplinary actions (December 2023).
7. Ohio Real Estate Commission, Fall 2018 newsletter, summarized by Hondros College; Ohio Revised Code 4735.18.
8. Texas Real Estate Commission, “Escalating to Trouble” (TREC Rule 537.11(b)(5)).
9. Wis. Admin. Code REEB 24.12; Minn. Stat. 82.71; Mo. Rev. Stat. 339.750.
10. BindingOffers, multiple-offer disclosure rules by state (reviewed September 2026).

Questions