Limited is limited. 

it depends

Not at all.

When I was a client I loved it, much more efficient, less squabbling between the agents.

Cesar Contreras - it is the agreement between the two parties - and they should know the pros and cons.

I personally do not do limited agency as I give full service and that is my business model and feel it is best for all.

I wish you all the best in your studies. 

That Chapter One, is calling to you

I have no issues with "Limited Agency" (sometimes referred to as Dual Agency), if everything is disclosures and each client got what they want, why not? 

On another note: it is much easier for me to represent both principals. 

Ali G asked doctors what they think about youth in Asia.

Depends on who you ask.

  It depends.

It a great idea for those who understand what limited agency is and are experienced and educated accordingly.

It a very bad idea for those whose only parameter is to save a few dollars. These unprepared folks will be the most vocal when the sweet words of dollars saved turn bitter realizing, 'they didn't know."

Cesar Contreras It doesn't matter what I think. The client has to determine what is best for their situation.

All state laws are different! Brokers must choose what is an acceptable business practice for them!

It is a horrible idea. A client should often want and have 100% attention and representation for the best results. 

Check state law to see if it is allowed.

we select a side and we stay there....no dual agency for us...

We don't have it in Oklahoma.

I don't think it's good for anyone.

Follow the rules in your state.

We don't do it.

I don't do limited agency.