Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I understand that they are able to void the contract. My original question is, if we were to ask for repair credit, can they void the contract without giving us warning. The part of the Home Inspection Clause that I put in my original post states that they have to give me 3 days notice before the contract is void, but I may be misunderstanding it.

Agent again.

OP, I feel like we've all been answering this and you aren't getting it, so I'll be absolutely blunt.

YES. THEY CAN VOID THE CONTRACT WITHOUT WARNING IF YOU ASK FOR A CREDIT OR REPAIRS.

Yup, I already accepted it as per my previous post. No need to shout!

Although, you were only the second person to actually answer my question. I already understood in my original posting that they can void the contract, but not that they don't need to give us 3 days warning.

LOL. I wasn't shouting, just trying to make sure it was clear.

Anyway, despite what the contract language says (I know, lawyers, I know) as some PP's pointed out, sellers market being what it is, this isn't worth taking a chance on if there are other people who would take the house as-is and you love the house. If I were your agent, I would float the idea by the listing agent for shits and giggles to see what the reaction is. But I wouldn't put anything in writing until I got the other agent's response. If they huff and say "Oh, well we have others who will take it" -whether that's true or not, you know that you won't get very far and could lose the house if you ask for anything. If they are reasonable and say that they didn't know the house had issues and they'll talk to the sellers since this will come up on subsequent inspections with a new buyer anyway, then that's more of an open door to try.

So yes, they can walk away, but like someone said upthread, this depends on how long the house was on the market, if it's fairly priced, if other buyers would really take it as-is, etc. There are a bunch of other factors that could play in, unfortunately though your agent being M.I.A. right now isn't helping your case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I understand that they are able to void the contract. My original question is, if we were to ask for repair credit, can they void the contract without giving us warning. The part of the Home Inspection Clause that I put in my original post states that they have to give me 3 days notice before the contract is void, but I may be misunderstanding it.

Agent again.

OP, I feel like we've all been answering this and you aren't getting it, so I'll be absolutely blunt.

YES. THEY CAN VOID THE CONTRACT WITHOUT WARNING IF YOU ASK FOR A CREDIT OR REPAIRS.

Yup, I already accepted it as per my previous post. No need to shout!

Although, you were only the second person to actually answer my question. I already understood in my original posting that they can void the contract, but not that they don't need to give us 3 days warning.

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I understand that they are able to void the contract. My original question is, if we were to ask for repair credit, can they void the contract without giving us warning. The part of the Home Inspection Clause that I put in my original post states that they have to give me 3 days notice before the contract is void, but I may be misunderstanding it.

Agent again.

OP, I feel like we've all been answering this and you aren't getting it, so I'll be absolutely blunt.

YES. THEY CAN VOID THE CONTRACT WITHOUT WARNING IF YOU ASK FOR A CREDIT OR REPAIRS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP Here.

All I'm asking is for clarification as to what the bolded part of the contract means (in my original post). I'm not sure why a few people here are getting angry and taking this personally.

It sounds as though your agent has pretty much told you that it is improper for you to make this request thereby changing the terms of your contract. The sellers aren't going to go for it and their agent will not want to deal with you.

Either accept the risk or don't.

OP Here

You're right. I think we'll accept the risk because we love the house. I just wanted clarification previously even though we were going to go through with the sale anyway.

Thank you everyone for your input though!

Yes, OP, the seller can void immediately if you submit a counteroffer. The sellers do not gave yo give you three days.

Why is a property like this, being sold under these conditions getting so many offers? I don't get it unless the lot/location is what people are interested in in the first place.

Termites, water damage, broken/non-working major systems....seriously?

Anonymous wrote:OP Here.

All I'm asking is for clarification as to what the bolded part of the contract means (in my original post). I'm not sure why a few people here are getting angry and taking this personally.

It sounds as though your agent has pretty much told you that it is improper for you to make this request thereby changing the terms of your contract. The sellers aren't going to go for it and their agent will not want to deal with you.

Either accept the risk or don't.

Anonymous wrote:I think other people are expressing anger because it appears as if you won the bid BECAUSE you did not have an inspection contingency, and now you are backtracking on that.

There's a reason why sellers go for the bid with no inspection contingency (or just an information-only one). And it is not in good faith if you enter into the contract and win the bid because of that, but then you want to negotiate repairs.

OP here again.

The seller made all offers sign an information-only contingency. We won because we bid over the listing price and are paying in cash. This is east of the river, so it's not like the crazy rest-of-DC market.

OP Here.

Anonymous wrote:
I think OP didn't think through the as-is part. The questions like "has anyone been living there since 2011?" are questions that should've been asked before putting in an as-is bid.

Yeah, we really should have looked more into it. We are first time buyers and loved the house. All we knew going in was that the woman died and this is an estate sale. I only just found out she died in 2011 after Googling her name.

Anonymous wrote:
And at this point, I wonder if the seller can insist on claiming the security deposit if OP walks. Because I thought that information-only inspections DON'T give the buyer an out even to walk if they find something bad, that's what the "information-only" part is.

The deposit is only ~$2000, no big deal in the greater scheme of things. I was given reassurances from my realtor that we can still walk even though the AS-IS clause the seller added says that the inspection is for buyer information only. But good point! I need to research that more.

OP Here.

Anonymous wrote:
I think OP didn't think through the as-is part. The questions like "has anyone been living there since 2011?" are questions that should've been asked before putting in an as-is bid.

Yeah, we really should have looked more into it. We are first time buyers and loved the house. All we knew going in was that the woman died and this is an estate sale. I only just found out she died in 2011 after Googling her name.

Anonymous wrote:
And at this point, I wonder if the seller can insist on claiming the security deposit if OP walks. Because I thought that information-only inspections DON'T give the buyer an out even to walk if they find something bad, that's what the "information-only" part is.

The deposit is only ~$2000, no big deal in the greater scheme of things. I was given reassurances from my realtor that we can still walk even though the AS-IS clause the seller added says that the inspection is for buyer information only. But good point! I need to research that more.

I think other people are expressing anger because it appears as if you won the bid BECAUSE you did not have an inspection contingency, and now you are backtracking on that.

There's a reason why sellers go for the bid with no inspection contingency (or just an information-only one). And it is not in good faith if you enter into the contract and win the bid because of that, but then you want to negotiate repairs.

Anonymous wrote:OP Here.

All I'm asking is for clarification as to what the bolded part of the contract means (in my original post). I'm not sure why a few people here are getting angry and taking this personally.

I think you need to ask a qualified real estate agent or a lawyer. I also think that it depends what other things are in the contract. I'm not sure that anyone on here can say what that one sentence means without seeing the rest of that section of the contract.

If your real estate agent is not giving you answers, call his/her broker and ask.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you sign a contract that says "inspection for information purposes only" that is what it means. Either you didn't take the time to understand that when you signed, or you made a gamble that there would not be issues and lost. You can always ask, but frankly, if I were the seller with that contract, I'd let you walk.

I tend to agree.

I agree, too. The other issue is that this trend towards information-only inspections hurts other buyers. I'm sure there were other buyers who weren't willing to take the gamble OP took and lost out on the bid.

I'm the PP earlier who wrote about being worried about water or termite damage. I also stated that inspections usually don't even reveal all of the potential problems. But that is why I would never put in a contract without an inspection contingency of some sort. And yes, there were houses I lost because of that. It's a gamble I'm not willing to take.

I think OP didn't think through the as-is part. The questions like "has anyone been living there since 2011?" are questions that should've been asked before putting in an as-is bid.

In MD at least, termite problems are different. I think even in as-is situations, termite problems have to be dealt with, but that is stated in the standard MD contract. (at least that is how my last agent explained it).

If I were OP, I would walk. But if I were OP, I wouldn't have put in a bid like that anyhow. And at this point, I wonder if the seller can insist on claiming the security deposit if OP walks. Because I thought that information-only inspections DON'T give the buyer an out even to walk if they find something bad, that's what the "information-only" part is.

OP Here.

All I'm asking is for clarification as to what the bolded part of the contract means (in my original post). I'm not sure why a few people here are getting angry and taking this personally.

You need a lawyer if you have a question like this.