A real estate agent presents an offer to their seller client that contains an unusual condition allowing the buyer to assign the contract to another party. The seller is confused about this provision. What is the agent's primary legal obligation in this situation?

Option A: Recommend that the seller reject any offer with assignment clauses

This is wrong because automatically recommending rejection of any offer with assignment clauses is not in the client's best interest and exceeds the agent's authority. Assignment clauses may be legitimate and beneficial in certain circumstances. The agent should facilitate informed decision-making, not make blanket recommendations without proper legal analysis.

Option C: Explain that assignment clauses are standard and pose no risk

This is incorrect because assignment clauses are not necessarily standard and can pose significant risks depending on the specific terms and circumstances. Stating they pose no risk constitutes legal advice and misrepresents the potential implications. This could mislead the client and expose the agent to liability for providing inaccurate legal guidance.

Option D: Remove the assignment clause before presenting the offer

This is wrong because agents cannot unilaterally modify offers without explicit client consent. Removing clauses without authorization exceeds the agent's authority and could constitute misrepresentation. The agent's role is to present offers as received and facilitate informed decision-making, not to alter contractual terms independently.