A marketplace clause owes the fee on closing regardless of who sourced the buyer. Is that standard?

Source-blind fee triggers exist because platforms can't police attribution. Once a property is exposed to a list, the platform can't prove whether the eventual buyer saw it there or heard about it at a meetup, so the clause gets written broadly and the seller has to negotiate carve-outs. That's the part being skipped here. The normal fix is a named buyer schedule attached to the agreement, listing existing relationships by name and entity, with the fee waived or reduced if one of those parties closes. Platforms do agree to it when the seller brings a real list, because the alternative is not listing at all. Name the four-deal buyer and the other 29 specifically, and do it before Monday, because after the property is exposed the leverage is gone. The auto-extension is the clause worth fighting harder. A 120 day tail that renews unless a 10 day notice window gets calendared is an administrative trap, and staggered listing dates mean two different notice dates to track. Ask for a single fixed term with no auto-renew and a written extension if both sides want one. On whether 3 percent of gross is market, ranges run from a flat few thousand up to a share of spread, and gross price is the worse basis here since the fee in question is on spread, not price. Ask for 3 percent of assignment fee instead and see what they say. Whether the fee arrangement itself has licensing implications in that state is a question for a local attorney, and states differ on that.