Olive Branch Inspection Contingency

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.

Would you rather learn or be trained?

Learning is what we do for ourselves. Training is done to us. Maybe that’s why learning opportunities promoted as training sessions are unfilled with experienced employees or professionals.  Continuing education isn’t a big draw either. Education is learning, but it’s not something people who have arrived agree they need. That’s why CE is mandatory and not voluntary.

A company with a culture that places high value on learning will attract learners. People who learn develop insights, skills, and wisdom they won’t get in training or Continuing Education.  Learners stay ahead of change. They embrace new technology if for no other reason than it’s something new to learn.

Would you prefer to be represented by a person who is continually learning, or one who just got  out of training, or attended mandatory continuing ed?

 

You can teach a guy to fish, but he’s gotta wanna eat.

I was reminded this morning that teaching a person to fish could feed them for a lifetime, but only if they want to eat. The person who wants to be given a fish is not going to fish even, if they have the ability, until they decide that eating is better for them than starving.

The effort of teaching is exponentially magnified in results by the student who finds inspiration to make the learned technique or tool a habit. Never quit teaching because some people don’t want to eat. Teach to the people who aspire to greater heights.