Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We put in an offer for asking and "as-is" but with an inspection. I think the understanding was that the offer was as-is unless the inspection revealed something genuinely problematic. It seemed normal to me and the agent was the one who said it would happen this way.

I would never have bought a house without an inspection. The inspection did reveal a bunch of small easily fixable things, but had we discovered a major fault with the foundations, we could walk away.

The misinformation on this board is astounding. "As-is" isn't a legal term. It wasn't a contractual term for you. There are no "understandings," just the legal terms in your contract. You either had an inspection contingency or you didn't. Your contract didn't state that you could void your contract only if the inspection revealed something genuinely problematic. That's very nebulous and would have been malpractice if your agent actually wrote that in your contract.

Legality aside, there’s also the issue for the seller that an inspection could spook a buyer into breaking the contract and giving up the EMD (which would be hard to keep anyway). If I were a seller and had other offers without an inspection at all, the “as is inspection” offer would have to be significantly higher and have a large EMD for me to consider it equal to one without an inspection.

The fact that sellers prefer no contingencies has already been discussed ad nauseum. And it's not "legality aside" - contingencies are contractual terms that provide the legal right to buyers to void the contract.

I said legality aside because yes there are legal rights BUT an inspection gives a NOT legal, NOT written in the contract reason for a buyer to break contract. That’s the whole point. Allowing ANY inspection regardless of any legal protection could spook a buyer leaving a seller relisting.

You couldn't be more wrong. The inspection contingency is the legal reason for the buyer to void the contract and it's written in the contract. Why do you come here just spewing random guesses and doubling down on it when you have no idea how this works?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We put in an offer for asking and "as-is" but with an inspection. I think the understanding was that the offer was as-is unless the inspection revealed something genuinely problematic. It seemed normal to me and the agent was the one who said it would happen this way.

I would never have bought a house without an inspection. The inspection did reveal a bunch of small easily fixable things, but had we discovered a major fault with the foundations, we could walk away.

The misinformation on this board is astounding. "As-is" isn't a legal term. It wasn't a contractual term for you. There are no "understandings," just the legal terms in your contract. You either had an inspection contingency or you didn't. Your contract didn't state that you could void your contract only if the inspection revealed something genuinely problematic. That's very nebulous and would have been malpractice if your agent actually wrote that in your contract.

Legality aside, there’s also the issue for the seller that an inspection could spook a buyer into breaking the contract and giving up the EMD (which would be hard to keep anyway). If I were a seller and had other offers without an inspection at all, the “as is inspection” offer would have to be significantly higher and have a large EMD for me to consider it equal to one without an inspection.

The fact that sellers prefer no contingencies has already been discussed ad nauseum. And it's not "legality aside" - contingencies are contractual terms that provide the legal right to buyers to void the contract.

I said legality aside because yes there are legal rights BUT an inspection gives a NOT legal, NOT written in the contract reason for a buyer to break contract. That’s the whole point. Allowing ANY inspection regardless of any legal protection could spook a buyer leaving a seller relisting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-inspection if allowed (which is a less involved inspection prior to putting in the offer) or put an information-only inspection with right to void in the offer (may be a dealbreaker if others offer no contingencies at all).

"Right to cancel/void" inspections are no different than inspection contingencies from a seller's perspective. It is in practice no different than a regular inspection contingency. Best way forward is to do a pre-bid inspection (either before the opens of on Sunday night/Monday morning). Then you know what you need to in order to make your strongest offer. In this market there will be offers waiving inspection (because they did pre-bid), appraisal and financing. You are unlikely to win without waiving.

This isn’t true. We accepted an offer with an information only inspection and what it meant was that we weren’t going to get nickle and dimed for minor repairs. Sale went through fine and nothing on inspection caused any issues. If we allowed a regular inspection we’d probably have had to pay a few thousand to repair stuff.