just had an offer on my house which is acceptable for what we were asking. the house is about 40 years old and we have always kept up with it - ie: if there was a problem we fixed it right away. the potential buyer did not request an inspection - whats up with this? other offers - which we refused had a clause in the offer - subject to inspection.
They're niave.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
The buyer is a fool. Don't worry about it, as it works in your favor.
The other buyers were more savvy than this one. Just curious why you refused the other offers... hope it wasn't because of the inspection contingency clause...
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
nope - considering they are paying what it was appraised for.
Even though no inspection is required by contract, some state laws require sellers to reveal significant problems or provide a certification that they are not doing so. You may want to check with a lawyer for requirements in your state.
offers on the homes that were subject to inspection were too low.
Maybe the buyer is knowledgeable enough to do it himself. I didn't get one on my last home purchase
lawyer said it's fine - just general questions like - any urea(sp) blown in, buried furnace oil tanks etc.
Then you're the one who might be making the mistake. Home sales nowadays usually go far above the appraised value. This buyer probably is banking on your low price to cover anything which might be discovered in an inspection.
HOuse inspections can cost several hundred dollars. Some may not want to pay this much for a service , especially if they do not buy the house. I just bought a house about a year ago. While I could look over the house and determing a few minor defects, I would hate to miss something that would cost a lot of money to repair. I did refuse the 'insurance' from the house inspection. After looking over the insurance contract , it did not seem to offer very much protection . I was at the inspection (asked and the inspector said it was fine for me to be there). We only saw what I thought we might see in a 20 year old house. This was good. It could have went the other way and I could have missed something that would have cost thousands that I had not allowed for in the price of the house.
In addition to other comments regarding state requirements on seller for disclosure, it isn't a foregone conclusion that you're totally indemnified from recourse by buyer if a material defect were to be discovered.
As Bruce Williams so often states, to go into any real estate transaction w/o legal representation on side is foolish...
And, btw, don't be too complacent that the offerer has approved financing--it's quite possible when that step occurs his lender come back w/ the request for inspection....
Citation, please?
nope - appraisal is very consistent with the current market, the age and condition of the house and what similar homes were sold for in the general area.
On 4 Mar 2005 06:52:04 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@nf.sympatico.ca scribbled this interesting note:
Let's review some of the responses you've had:
naive gift horse you're the one who might be making the mistake buyer is a fool check with a lawyer
While each and every one of these may be true, it ain't necessarily so. Granted we're far from normal in this case, but I've never bought a house and felt the need to pay for the opinion of a home inspector. In each and every case, I already knew the issues the house had and was prepared to fix them. The buyer may be naive, you may indeed by lucky or making a mistake, the buyer may be foolish, and it is always good advice to seek legal counsel.
That being said, what is your lawyer's opinion? Are you comfortable with the contract? Are you unduly exposed to problems if the sale goes through and issues arise after the fact? It is always the case that the buyer should beware. I don't know the buyer, but he or she might be better educated than you about the state of your home just by doing a walk through. And I'm not talking about minor issues like the occasional plug with reversed polarity or burned out light bulbs or drippy faucets (all of which I've seen reported on their reports!)
Remember, a home inspection can cause lots of problems, especially if the inspector isn't all that good. A top-notch home inspection is a worthwhile endeavor for a buyer who is clueless. A poor home inspection can create problems for all parties involved, from the seller to the buyer to the agent to the mortgage company to the title company to people who've worked on the home in the past and have to go back out and educate a so-called professional who should already be educated!
Make your best guesstimate and hope for the best.
-- John Willis (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)
No inspection clause means no recourse, whether you do it or hire someone else to do it.
Ok, I made a mistake - I was thinking ASSESED value. Nevermind.
I didnt hire an inspector. I figure it's a crapshoot and mostly a waste of time and money. I looked at the house enough myself.
I don't know of any home inspection contract that permits recourse for their errors. In fact, every one I've ever seen specifically protects them in the event of errors or omissions.
Home inspections are not required by the lender. Pest inspections are. It's up to the borrower and some new home owners either don't know they can get one (the realtor isn't doing a great job) or they don't feel like shelling out any more in fees. It's very possible that they have a friend who is a contractor/engineer/inspector and had them look at the house with them to point out any potential problems. Someone could make a list of things to look for and you do the inspection yourself as long as you can remain objective.
snipped-for-privacy@nf.sympatico.ca wrote:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.