The article (intentionally?) confuses seller&#x27;s agent and buyer&#x27;s agent. The seller&#x27;s agent gets the best deal they can get for the original seller. After that the seller&#x27;s agent is pretty much in the dark for the rest of the process, the way I understand it.<p>The buyer&#x27;s agent, taking advantage of the assignment clause and delayed close, can now shop the property (probably without possibility of showings) and if somehow they can find a better offer, pass along to their buyer the chance to flip it for some quick cash.<p>I don&#x27;t see anything remotely illegal, unethical, or even unfair.