Kelly Gregson(a real estate agent) contacted Rhonda Meadows (a corporate lawyer) to get a listing for the sale of Meadows’s home. Meadows did not list the property but allowed Gregson to show it to potential buyers. Immediately following a showing, Gregson announced that she had an offer to purchase but would not provide the details until Meadows agreed to give her the listing. Meadows agreed and subsequently entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the buyer. Ultimately, however, she refused to proceed with the transaction. Gregson sued for the lost commission of almost $18,000, relying on a clause in the listing agreement that provided for payment of the commission for an aborted deal so long as the non-completion was not due to the fault or neglect of the agent. Meadows argued that she was not liable for the commission as Gregson was in breach of the listing agreement by failing to disclose that she was representing the buyers. Gregson countered that the listing agreement contained a clause allowing the agent to act as a dual agent in the transaction. Meadows noted that the clause requires the agent to inform the seller in writing of the dual agency at the earliest opportunity and prior to any offer being submitted and that Gregson had not done so. Gregson argued that she had made it clear to Meadows that she had a relationship with the buyers as she had stated she had a “buyer under contract” who had approved financing and a commitment to purchase. Also, she had left a package with Meadows that included an agency brochure and in any event, as Meadows was a corporate lawyer she should have known about the dual agency. Further, Gregson argued that any breach of the agreement was not material and not prejudicial to Meadows and was not the cause of Meadows cancelling the transaction as there was no evidence that Gregson favoured the buyers to the detriment of Meadows. Evaluate the strength of both parties’ arguments. Which party has the strongest arguments? Explain.