What best describes the agreement type when actions suggest a seller will pay a broker, but no formal contract exists?

The most accurate description of the situation where actions suggest a seller will pay a broker, despite the absence of a formal contract, is an implied agreement. An implied agreement arises from conduct, circumstances, and the actions of the parties involved, rather than from explicit verbal or written commitments. In this context, if a seller is acting in a manner that indicates they intend to compensate the broker for their services (e.g., allowing the broker to show the property, engaging in negotiations, or making representations regarding the sale), it implies an understanding that is legally binding, even in the absence of a formal written contract.

The concept focuses on the behavior and implicit communications between the parties rather than formal documentation. This agreement can be just as enforceable as an explicit contract in certain situations, particularly in real estate transactions where broker fees may be based on perceived mutual consent.

In contrast, verbal agreements involve direct spoken commitments that may not yet be formalized, while exclusive agreements typically refer to contracts that grant one broker the sole right to represent a seller, which involves clear, explicit terms rather than implied understanding. Open agreements allow multiple brokers to work with the same seller without exclusivity, which again does not align with the situation presented in the question.