Dangerous Business Practices in a Sellers Market, Part 4
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 มิ.ย. 2024
- Washington REALTORS® Legal Hotline Lawyer Annie Fitzsimmons continues the Dangerous Business Practices series with her guest, RE/MAX Integrity Owner Broker Paul Blumenstetter. In Part 4 of this series Annie and Paul talk about the risks for both sellers and buyers who have pre-inspections performed on properties for sale.
For more information on Washington REALTORS, visit www.warealtor.org
--------------------------
Legal Hotline Video featuring Annie Fitzsimmons, Washington REALTORS® Legal Hotline Lawyer - The Legal Hotline is a Washington REALTOR® Member only benefit. These videos are intended for Washington REALTOR® members. If you have questions and are a primary member in good standing with Washington REALTORS®, visit www.warealtor.org to contact the Legal Hotline Lawyer. You will need your NRDS ID and password to inquire with the Legal Hotline or search the database.
Copyright © 2021 Washington REALTORS®.
Please contact Washington REALTORS® (1-800-562-6024 )
before using this video outside of TH-cam.
Good stuff! Thank you
The new Form 35, effective March, 2021, provides that the delivery of an inspection report waives the inspection contingency. So there's some teeth in the provision under Form 35--not the same with a pre-inspection.
That's why when you allow preinspections you already have the sellers have their own and fix any problems that arised from the sellers inspection before you go live
Not advised. Seller's inspections are not a good idea because they put sellers on notice of any conditions that their house might have. The point is to avoid sellers having notice of things they do not already know about. It also adds to disclosure requirements.
Sellers do not limit to ONLY use their inspection... they usually have the 35P signed by the time it goes live if the buyers still want to conduct their own inspection...
In these times the form 17 is already signed by the time it goes live on the nwmls... and it is very seldom that the prospective buyers give their own inspection to the sellers and if you already have the inspection of the seller and they still decide to conduct their own inspection the most probable thing that will happen is that those 2 inspections have to match otherwise someone is lying and I dont think inspectors at least the good ones are going to risk to say a lie on it, if anything the discrepancy should be in good faith...
I believe seller providing their own inspection for *informational purposes* to buyers, and having them sign an addendum (our brokerage has one) stating this fact and that seller still recommends buyer hire their own inspector solves all these issues.
It does not solve problems, it creates additional problems because the seller picked the inspector and would therefore be more likely to be liable for things the inspector did not find (similar to a negligent referral). There's a reason it's recommended agents refer a buyer to three inspectors and not just one. Also, the seller would have notice of everything in the inspection before even listing the property and need to price accordingly and/or have more difficulty finding a buyer.
That there is no statewide form and that your brokerage has to draft its own form to provide for that is some indication of the risk.
If a seller pre-inspection is provided... Can liability be reduced or eliminated by requiring that ALL offers include an inspection contingency? So that buyer has built-in the opportunity to determine the condition of the property.
They is some dumb sellers out there, and even dumber buyers.