The context: I'm an intermediary. We've noticed a trend recently of buyers for smaller transactions submitting LOI's very quickly - review the CIM and within one day an LOI is submitted. We don't work this way for two reasons: 1) we don't hold back diligence materials pre-LOI and we expect a buyer to ask for additional information and do pre-LOI diligence, 2) we expect a deal to close when we execute the LOI, so we want to know the buyer has done their diligence.

I have a hunch that buyers are getting this advice from others who say "Just get a bunch of LOIs out there" combined with their experience with bad business brokers who won't provide any diligence materials until they have an LOI in place.

I'm wondering if I'm swimming upstream by trying to force buyers to follow our process? The tension being that I don't want to lock a seller into 90 days of exclusivity for a buyer that may be on the fence, but I also want to give the buyer some comfort that their offer will be accepted.

So, what if we proposed an exclusivity clause that allowed the seller to stay in market even while under contract?
Here are the terms of my proposed clause:
- We're allowed to continue to market the deal and talk with buyers
- The buyer is allowed to terminate the LOI
- We're NOT allowed to terminate the LOI unless mutually agreed with the buyer
- We're NOT allowed to accept another proposal

What say you, Searchfunders? Would you accept these terms? I want to give buyers comfort that we won't rug pull them without locking up a seller unnecessarily.