It's that old kung fu thing where you don't confront or block the blow, you do ninja magic to redirect the momentum to your advantage - you got the financing you want AND a discount.EDIT: Now that I think about it, it's possible that the reason the seller "doesn't want" to deal with the bank and/or residential is because there is some reason the seller knows that it can't get residential financing.

And if I charge application fees, many more wouldn't have bothered to come.Nowadays, with no application fees, with open houses where everyone is welcomed, I get the applications, then review them for income and the number of people, and I get to pick one without getting into hostile confrontations.

When I confronted him about it, he projected another two weeks.Of course that was a lie.

You get super nervous for the first 10 people  and they tell you no and give you disgusted looks, 1 person tells a security guard and he confronts you, you ask him for his shirt, he says no and asks you to stop.

Today this, tomorrow that, and then no communication for 4-5 days.When I confronted her about it, she was just nonchalant about it.

I know it depends on the individual but I'm staunchly in the owner camp for the same reasons as @Bryan Otteson and @Theresa Worsham.I'm a non-confrontational person who hates conflict but, since my policies are fair and logical, I have no problem representing them as my own.

What is an agent's responsibility when confronted with a clear violation by a peer, especially when it puts their client at a disadvantage?

I feel like this could be a big turn off and come off as too aggressive/confrontational.

Does less confrontational mean less professional? 

Eventually I came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth confronting people about it.