Seller inspections

Agents, buyers, sellers, what are your thoughts. I want to throw out a few issues that are not always considered. As a Realtor, I love it when a seller provides one, although I absolutely appraise the buyer of the risks, and I do have my concerns, because my Inspectors are great, and not all are. But it makes it easier for me when they are willing to rely on it, and better chance of getting the deal. And I would much prefer it than to waive inspection altogether. However, the risk of an inspection accidentally or willfully missing something big is definitely there. So I worry sometimes that as a Realtor, I need to put aside the fact that I like it and advise buyers not to rely on them. It does make things easier for buyers, despite the risk, and allows buyers to bid a house up with more confidence.

As a seller, it is not so simple as it might seem either. As Annie Fitzsimmons, the attorney for the King county association of Realtors points out, the seller could potentially be held liable if a buyer relied on a seller provided inspection, if the buyer were to claim that the seller represented that the inspection can be relied on, and it turns out, in the eyes of the buyers, to be faulty. Of course, traditionally, some have advised a seller get an inspection and fix everything, so that they do not have to worry about the items later. But in todays market, that might be a non issue. Conversely, others advise against it because then the seller has a duty to disclose. I do hate the idea of buyers buying with no inspection whatsoever, and also hate the idea of five buyers all paying for inspections when only one will get the house. Years ago, there was a company that was doing inspections and selling them to multiple people for like $300. But once the market slowed down, they probably were no longer viable.

However, now, some sellers are starting to provide them, so that buyers can buy without an inspection contingency. On the one hand, it might open toe seller to liability claims. On the other hand, it might allow buyers to bid higher with confidence. SO, from a seller perspective, it might be good for best price, but be a potential liability. That said, it occurred to me that a seller is not safe from liability claims by not providing an inspection. It is just a matter of time before a buyer sues a seller for taking their offer with no inspection and no inspection contingency, claiming that they were pressured to buy with no inspection. Win or lose, noting prevents someone from suing and costing a seller a lot of money.

So, with all that considered, can you think of other issues worth considering? Do you think it is advisable to buy with a seller provided inspection? Do you think it is legally wise for a seller to have an inspection or not? Do you think it is likely to get he seller more money and does that offset liability risk.

Thoughts?

submitted by /u/clce
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/RealEstate/comments/o9qx8w/seller_inspections/