Given a choice, without being told of potential consequences, a Buyer Client is 99% likely to include a Buyer Favorable leverage an inspection contingency, over the one on page 9 of the Offer to Purchase. The people who created the Inspection Contingency in the Offer intentionally tilted the advantage to the Seller. Obviously the Seller has more to risk in negotiations after acceptance. The party with the most on the line should have a reasonable opportunity to cure defects, and keep a transaction together when unexpected conditions are identified. During the Buyer Market run we had in and after the recession, more Firms began using a Buyer Favorable Inspection Contingency as standard practice. Sellers had no choice but to allow the Buyer to have the leverage which was intended for them. That happens when the market changes.
Well, the market changed again. Licensees stuck in the new habit of using a company crafted Buyer Leverage Inspection contingency gave no thought to the consequences to their clients and went right on checking the box without discussing the difference between that contingency and the one on page 9 of the Offer. Sellers and listing agents were quick to identify the high risk condition of the Buyer Favorable contingency. For no reason other than risk, Sellers will reject Offers which give the inspection advantage to the Buyer. It’s a shame when a person loses a house because they weren’t given a chance to make their offer more attractive to the Seller by simply being kinder, gentler, and safe.
Knowing the difference between a Heavy Hand and an Oliver Branch allows the licensee to give the client a real opportunity. It’s a magical thing watching a licensee earn the confidence of clients when they explain choices and think through a choice with clients.
Become a part of the conversation, a part of the thinking process by learning to find the trips and traps of contingencies. Some people will always do as they always have because that’s the way they learned it. But those people will never have the results they could have by learning why something is as it is, and learning how to make the contingencies work for their client. And by working for their client I don’t mean wrapping them in unnecessary protections.
