Whether and how clarity is found rests on legally recognized goals. For example, a doctrine designed to shift authority to specialized decision-makers might care more about disagreement than one that seeks to mitigate the unfairness of unexpected judicial rulings. Different principles have good reasons to emphasize internal or external assessments of ambiguity. But percentile confidence figures are more at home in empirical work on measurable variables than in the normative judgments that legal clarity requires.
Homebuyers need a professional who can help them navigate the entire purchase process. A buyer’s agent assists in several areas, including property search and selection, paperwork and negotiation, market knowledge and expertise, and representing clients at closing. In addition, they can help determine how motivated sellers are and make recommendations based on real-time market data. Elk River realtors can provide a list of homes sold recently in the area and assist in figuring out what a fair offer price for a property would be. They can also help negotiate the sale and assist with inspections and appraisals before closing.
In most cases, the home seller pays the listing and buyer’s agent commissions at closing. Having the right professional by your side can save you time and money. Many buyers also find that having a dedicated buying agent can relieve stress from a very emotional process.
Closing agents, also known as settlement attorneys or escrow agents, ensure that all aspects of a real estate transaction are legally compliant. They ensure that the relevant documents are signed and funds are collected, verified, and disbursed per the terms of the contract and loan. Should real estate agents really be giving legal advice in Minneapolis, MN? Although courts care about legal clarity because of legally recognized goals—such as a desire to shift authority to specialized decision-makers or mitigate the unfairness of unexpected judicial rulings—their conceptions vary widely from one doctrinal area to another. To address that problem, some propose that a doctrine’s goals should dictate its conception of legal clarity. Specifically, when courts find legal clarity or the rule of lenity, they should not also see it in cases involving habeas corpus or qualified immunity. Such a move would require a reconsideration of the goals that these doctrines serve and, consequently, might spur reform proposals that seek to limit the scope of their interpretations of law.
The residential real estate process can be complex. Real estate agents with experience help their clients through each step. Their responsibilities include:
- Providing insights into the local market.
- Answering questions correctly and promptly.
- Handling the paperwork.
They also conduct a comparative market analysis, looking into a property’s surface area and specifications and comparing it to others to arrive at a listing price. They then take steps to promote and market the property, assisting with open houses and other events. Often, the same agent is both the buyer’s and seller’s agent; however, this is known as dual agency and is illegal in some states. In this case, the agent must adhere to a strict fiduciary duty to both parties and put their client’s needs first. They must also be able to negotiate with both parties to reach an agreement. For example, they could push for an earlier closing date or waive certain inspections to get their clients the best deals.
A court’s reason to care about legal clarity may depend on its degree of certainty or uncertainty regarding resolving a specific question of law. A confident deciding court might believe it is well-informed or expert on the subject and can expect to make the right decision in every case. Conversely, an uncertain deciding court might worry that it will misunderstand the law or make unintended errors. Moreover, the specific goals that a clarity doctrine seeks to dictate the resulting doctrine’s form. For example, a doctrine that aims to shift authority from generalists to specialized experts might seek certainty based on the views of epistemic peers or friends rather than on actual case law. Despite its convenience, the widespread practice of reducing legal ambiguity to percentile confidence levels is also misleading. These percentages are more at home in empirical work focused on measurable variables than in the normative judgments that legal clarity requires.