Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 54-2050 (2026)
Brokerage representation agreements — Required elements.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Brokerage representation agreements — Required elements.
All real estate brokerage representation agreements, whether with a buyer or seller, must be in writing in the manner required by section 54-2085, Idaho Code, and must contain the following contract provisions:
(1) Seller representation agreements. Each seller representation agreement, whether exclusive or nonexclusive, must contain the following provisions:
(a) Conspicuous and definite beginning and expiration dates;
(b) A description of the property to be bought or sold that sufficiently identifies the property so as to evidence an understanding of the parties as to the location of the real property. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a legal description nor a metes and bounds description of the property. Provided further, a representation agreement shall not be held invalid for lack of a legal description or a metes and bounds description;
(c) Price and terms;
(d) All fees or commissions; and
(e) The signature of the owner of the real estate or the owner’s legal, appointed and duly qualified representative and the date of such signature.
(2) Buyer representation agreements. Each buyer representation agreement, whether exclusive or nonexclusive, must contain the following provisions:
(a) Conspicuous and definite beginning and expiration dates;
(b) All financial obligations of the buyer or prospective buyer, if any, including, but not limited to, fees or commissions;
(c) The manner in which any fee or commission will be paid to the broker; and
(d) Appropriate signatures and their dates.
(3) Prohibited provisions and exceptions — Automatic renewal clauses. No buyer or seller representation agreement shall contain a provision requiring the party signing the agreement to notify the broker of the party’s intention to cancel the agreement after the definite expiration date, unless the representation agreement states that it is completely nonexclusive and it contains no financial obligation, fee or commission due from the party signing the agreement.
(4) Copies required. A sales associate who obtains a signed brokerage representation agreement of any kind shall provide a true and legible copy of such representation agreement to the designated broker or broker’s office prior to the end of the next business day.
(5) Copies required. A broker or salesperson who obtains a signed brokerage representation agreement of any kind shall, at the time of securing such agreement, give the person or persons signing such agreement a legible, signed, true and correct copy thereof. To the extent the parties have agreed in writing, copies that are electronically generated or transmitted, faxed or delivered in another method shall be deemed true and correct.
(6) Electronically generated agreements. To the extent the parties have agreed in writing, brokerage representation agreements with a buyer or seller that are electronically generated or transmitted, faxed or delivered in another method shall be deemed true and correct and enforceable as originals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Callies v. O'NEAL, 216 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2009).
Callies v. O'NEAL, 216 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2009). “The district court reasoned that the Legislature overruled Central Idaho Agency when it enacted section 54-2050. In any event, the court concluded Central Idaho Agency was inapplicable because the agreement in that case contained a description of the property — the description…”
Garner v. Bartschi, 80 P.3d 1031 (Idaho 2003). “Idaho Code § 54-2050 (l)(b) requires real estate brokerage representation agreements to be in writing and to contain a “legally enforceable description of the property.”
Knipe Land Co. v. Robertson, 259 P.3d 595 (Idaho 2011). “It is therefore unnecessary to address several of Appellants arguments, specifically: (1) whether the district court erred in allowing Respondents’ counsel to cross-examine Knipe and Strain about I.C. §§ 54-2050(l)(b), 54-2051(4)(e); and (2) whether the district court erred in…”
Johnson v. McPhee, 210 P.3d 563 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). “The written agreement also was required to comply with I.C. § 54-2050. 4 . Idaho Code § 9-504 states: The preceding section must not be construed to .”
Michael Scott Maclay v. Idaho Real Est. Comm'n, 300 P.3d 616 (Idaho 2012). “A seller representation agreement must contain “[conspicuous and definite beginning and expiration dates” as well as the “[p]rice and terms----” I.C. § 54-2050(l)(a), (e). Maelay does not contest that he acted as sales agent for the Jackson, Smith, and Wanner Seller…”
Re/Max Prestige, Daren Long v. Susan L. Mattson (Idaho Ct. App. 2026). “In this case, the contract was a brokerage representation agreement as described in I.C. § 54-2050. Mattson violated the contract when she agreed to sell the property to Oleson during the contract period with Long.”
Knipe Land Co. v. Richard A. Robertson (Idaho 2011). “10 district court erred in allowing Respondents’ counsel to cross-examine Knipe and Strain about I.C. §§ 54-2050(1)(b), 54-2051(4)(e); and (2) whether the district court erred in instructing the jury at the beginning of the trial that the parties had stipulated that the $22,500…”
— Idaho Code § 54-2050(1) — 1 case
Callies v. O'NEAL, 216 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2009). “The district court reasoned that the Legislature overruled Central Idaho Agency when it enacted section 54-2050. In any event, the court concluded Central Idaho Agency was inapplicable because the agreement in that case contained a description of the property — the description…”
— Idaho Code § 54-2050(1)(b) — 2 cases
Callies v. O'NEAL, 216 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2009). “The district court reasoned that the Legislature overruled Central Idaho Agency when it enacted section 54-2050. In any event, the court concluded Central Idaho Agency was inapplicable because the agreement in that case contained a description of the property — the description…”
Knipe Land Co. v. Richard A. Robertson (Idaho 2011). “10 district court erred in allowing Respondents’ counsel to cross-examine Knipe and Strain about I.C. §§ 54-2050(1)(b), 54-2051(4)(e); and (2) whether the district court erred in instructing the jury at the beginning of the trial that the parties had stipulated that the $22,500…”
— Idaho Code § 54-2050(l)(a) — 1 case
Michael Scott Maclay v. Idaho Real Est. Comm'n, 300 P.3d 616 (Idaho 2012). “A seller representation agreement must contain “[conspicuous and definite beginning and expiration dates” as well as the “[p]rice and terms----” I.C. § 54-2050(l)(a), (e). Maelay does not contest that he acted as sales agent for the Jackson, Smith, and Wanner Seller…”
— Idaho Code § 54-2050(l)(b) — 3 cases
Garner v. Bartschi, 80 P.3d 1031 (Idaho 2003). “Idaho Code § 54-2050 (l)(b) requires real estate brokerage representation agreements to be in writing and to contain a “legally enforceable description of the property.”
Knipe Land Co. v. Robertson, 259 P.3d 595 (Idaho 2011). “It is therefore unnecessary to address several of Appellants arguments, specifically: (1) whether the district court erred in allowing Respondents’ counsel to cross-examine Knipe and Strain about I.C. §§ 54-2050(l)(b), 54-2051(4)(e); and (2) whether the district court erred in…”
Callies v. O'NEAL, 216 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2009). “The district court reasoned that the Legislature overruled Central Idaho Agency when it enacted section 54-2050. In any event, the court concluded Central Idaho Agency was inapplicable because the agreement in that case contained a description of the property — the description…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.