If you agreed to 'assist' the buyer with 100% of value your agent will have involuntarily been reduced to volunteer status.
Of course this is not a practical example but serves to get the brain activity started.
You agreed to compensation in the sale or purchase of real estate. The agreement bears your signature.
The choices made by the buyer or seller has significant influence on that compensation.
A buyer may choose to purchase a home listed on the MLS that has $1 (one whole dollar) of compensation for the buyers agent. Do you honestly bevel it right for the buyer agent to work for one whole dollar? This is why true professionals address compensation early in the process.
On the seller side, you want to penalize the agent based on the offer you choose to accept. You could have waited for the cash offer. or the conventionally financed offer, or the buyer needing no compensation.
Let's take this further. Why not subtract the cost of repairs, the home warranty and the landscaping a homeowner does to prepare their home for sale in addition to financial assistance?
I have no doubt the agent will be agile and sensitive enough to hold your hand through this process and not place at risk your trust for the few dollars involved. However, I trust the agents BROKER will say..."Not in my lifetime!" The BROKER should require you to honor the agreement you SIGNED. If the agreement distinguishes between gross and net, that should work fine for you.
After all, it is the BROKER, not the agent, who OWNS the listing. The BROKER will enforce the rules. But your action is only focused on the REALTOR. Sigh...and it is the REALTOR/agent who is blamed for EVERYTHING and consequently held accountable for everything, since they are the only one anyone sees.
The few times I had a sale where there was a "seller's assist", the other agents and I only took commission based on the net the seller received.
This should be discussed and negotiated when you are putting the contract together.
I think the comment below about not being the "cheap person" who doesn't pay "their portion" of the dinner bill is very inappropriate.............plus, imo, it isn't a valid analogy.
Why should a seller pay commission on money he is giving back to the buyer, whether it is $300 or $3000??
Also, the commission on the difference of $95,000 and $100,000 may only be about $250 to $300. Don't be the cheap person that doesn't pay their portion at the dinner table just because they did not eat part of the comment ordered appetizer.