I have not had a seller client of mine complain about any of these issues, except a buyer gouging a hole in their door the size of a tennis ball during a showing. That was not good. I don’t know what makes people think they are entitiled to do things like that. I have seen and heard many sellers who are not my clients complaining that a buyer cancelled on inspection, without any major problems appearing in the inspection report. Clearly the seller believes that “cancelling on inspection” should be about the inspection. So there really isn’t a meeting of the minds when a buyer includes an Inspection Contingency and then uses it to another purpose, like simply changing his mind without inspecting the property.

During the hot market I have seen EBAs (Exclusive Buyer Agents) counsel buyers to use the offer to tie up the property, and use the inspection timeframe to decide if they want the property or not. When you are forced to make an offer within an hour, that seemd to be a means of proceeding that became necessary in many situations. Not so much today.

Ancient History: When and Where I started in real estate, the buyer could not cancel on inspection unless the aggregate of all inspection DEFECTS exceeded $_______ dollars. The blank was filled in at time of offer. “defects” was the standard and there was a list of allowable “defects”. I’ve had the blank filled in as low as $500 and as high as $10,000, depending on the property and the offer. On a foreclosure property where the bank wanted the offer to be “as-is”, we agreed to “as-is” as long as the total defects discovered during the inspection did not exceed $10,000. They didn’t. The buyer bought the property. I actually represented the seller/bank (mortgage company) and worked out the compromise with the buyer who was not represented. No buyers were represented back then. All agents represented sellers and we had the duty to be “fair” to all parties. The duty to be “fair” to all parties was eliminated from the Code of Ethics shortly thereafter. Honest – yes; Fair – no.

If an appraiser can do a “drive by” appraisal, I think a buyer can do a “drive by” inspection

Me, watching you? I wouldn’t dare.

But, please put that drink on a coaster.

To allow self inspection would be sort of like if you appointed some guy to determine who is the best candidate for Vice President, and he selected himself!

I’m thinking you’re a mind reader, or perhaps have a camera looking at my screen, because I started to write something like that and then backed off (or at least I think I did).

A pre-inspection is an option, but I didn’t mean to go so far as to say it’s something that the buyer should do. It’s an option they should consider.

There are at least two schools of thought on that. One is that if you’re going in with a low offer you’re better off waiving inspection, because you can point out that the offer is not going to get any worse after the inspection. The second is that the inspection gives you another opportunity to negotiate further reductions. Personally I prefer the first from the stand point that is shows better good faith. But again really the issue just doesn’t come up that often–most buyers want inspections.

Ardell, re 15, I’d largely agree. I was thinking more of unoccupied property and getting permission.

As to 14, we had a situation where the “inspection” consisted of the buyer driving her family past the house. They never went inside, but didn’t like either the exterior or the neighborhood (or both). I don’t think that gave our seller any grounds to object. I bring that up because I think proof of no inspection would be a bit difficult. It doesn’t require a complete inspection.

Ardell, I’d ask you why not? Isn’t the Form 35 inspection entirely subjective? If that’s the case isn’t making the buyer go through the formality of an “inspection” (whatever that means) a distinction without a difference. If the seller wanted to avoid “buyer’s remorse” he or she should have refused the inspection contingency or modified it in some fashion to limit or eliminate the subjectivity.

I recall a very similar discussion quite awhile ago with Kary in which we debated whether certain acts constituted an “inspection,” e.g., a buyer’s first visit to the property, a buyer’s viewing of online photographs, etc. Arguably these could satisfy the inspection requirement.

I think it depends on if the property is occupied or not occupied. I think if the property is occupied it would be too intrusive for a buyer to schedule an appointment for “a showing” and then start taking 3 hours to crawl into attics, remove the cover of the electrical panel, etc…

Making an appointment to show a property is not the same as making an appointment to do an inspection. The rights granted to someone during an inspection emanate from the contract provision. So with no contract signed by all parties, crawling around in someone’s crawl space and attic or walking around on their roof would present issues of liability, I would think.

What if something gets broken during the inspection? I have the same problem when a buyer hires an inspector, and the buyer starts pulling on wires and things that are “intrusive” during the inspection. The inspector has insurance to cover his breaking things…but does the inspector’s insurer cover the buyer himself breaking something during the inspection?

When the inspector invites the buyer onto the roof, what happens if the buyer falls through a soft spot? We’ve all been in those nervous situations. The faster people move around touching things all over the place, the more nervous I get Sometimes you have an inspector and the buyer and family members all running around pulling at windows and doors and screens and wires…oh and my favorite, taking out a pocket knife and gouging out wood rot in the window sills or wood siding and leaving a big hole where before the was no hole.

Do you think a buyer can cancel on inspection if no one came to the house to do an inspection during the inspection timeframe, be that the original inspection or the additional inspection?

I am not suggesting that a buyer “should” do their inspection prior to offer if they are going to self-inspect. I’m saying that in my experience those that do self inspect, tend to do do that prior to offer. They use the “no inspection contingency” card to help the low ball offer get accepted. If the owner is selling a fixer, a lowball with no inspection contingency and a fast close may be of more value than a higher offer with an inspection contingency. It wouldn’t be the first time a seller accepted a lower offer with no inspection contingency, especially if they fear the results of an inspection.

Both Ardell and Kary seem to suggest that a self-inspecting buyer will (or should) complete their initial inspection prior to making an offer. I’d say this is a subjective point of view on the issue and while I do not disagree with it I would caution against over-generalizing. For instance, in the current market savvy buyers are making lots of low ball offers in hopes of landing a big bargain. Why bother with a pre-inspection where one plans to make a low ball offer?