Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Usually if someone makes an offer contingent on sale of another property they usually come in with a very strong offer (at or above asking), a larger deposit and even a monthly 'fee' to hold the property if they go past a certain date. That is in a regular market for a typical property. In a strong market with a easily marketed property you would typically not see a buyer entertaining contingent offers unless the buyer already has another contract in hand and even then they expect a sweetened deal. The other end of the spectrum is if the property is either in a weak market or deficient and the seller/broker are really trying to take whatever they can get. Sometimes the contingent contract might be from a flipper who needs $ from one investment to purchase the next. Another scenario is if the house is a fixer and the prospective buyers for it are limited the seller is simply glad to get someone locked in for a decent price.
My mother is in the process of buying and she actually under bid the competing offer but got the home because she put in a clean contract. The competing buyers lived in the neighborhood but need to sell their existing home & this did not work for the sellers who wanted to sell by early summer. As I said someone who accepts a contingent offer either has to be given financial incentive or have a home that just isn't selling because its a weak property or a weak market.
You are much more likely to see a contingent offer in a commercial deal where the buyer might need approval from a franchise, a design review board or specific tenant to put the whole thing in motion.
Just was discussing this thread over lunch with my husband and, YIKES, he pointed out to me that my mistake is in how I view the RE industry and my expectations of that agreement to be "represented" or placed on the market. I guess I was thinking that I contract with the broker and agent and everyone involved in the process represents my interests because I have the product. And the mistaken belief that I am "footing" the bill at the closing. So I guess I now see why the responses were what they were regarding the contingency cons that I listed etc.
I think I know why the staging and showing process was my department and the bean counting his.
Just was discussing this thread over lunch with my husband and, YIKES, he pointed out to me that my mistake is in how I view the RE industry and my expectations of that agreement to be "represented" or placed on the market. I guess I was thinking that I contract with the broker and agent and everyone involved in the process represents my interests because I have the product. And the mistaken belief that I am "footing" the bill at the closing. So I guess I now see why the responses were what they were regarding the contingency cons that I listed etc.
I think I know why the staging and showing process was my department and the bean counting his.
I guess I was thinking that I contract with the broker and agent and everyone involved in the process represents my interests because I have the product.
What the ???
What transaction ever has only the sellers interests represented? Even crack dealers have to make some concessions to buyers.
^^^^^ Regarding the contingencies Moby Hick. And why are you so angry?
I'm not angry. I've got nothing to do with real estate except having bought one house (with no contingency about the sale of my own house -- I was renting before then). I just don't understand why accommodating a buyer seems strange to you. Lots of people try to sell me things, nearly all are willing to be quite flexible if it gets a deal that wouldn't happen otherwise.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,553 posts, read 81,067,970 times
Reputation: 57723
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots.
It really depends on how the market is. Someone already suggested taking one of the other offers instead. I think the point there is, is there a lot of activity on the house? In what they call a sellers market where you have multiple offers to choose from? If so, then maybe you can do better and you know it. Sellers accept this sometimes rather wait a while for another offer. It isn't a plus, because of the possible domino affect where the whole thing could fall apart. It is a compromise in order to try to sell the house.
Yes, and right now in our area no one is likely to accept an offer with any contingency, because there are so many offers over asking, many for cash the first few days after it hits the listings. It wasn't that many years ago (5-6) that in many places any offer would be readily accepted, because there was so much inventory.
Yes, and right now in our area no one is likely to accept an offer with any contingency, because there are so many offers over asking, many for cash the first few days after it hits the listings. It wasn't that many years ago (5-6) that in many places any offer would be readily accepted, because there was so much inventory.
Not even appraisal contingencies? Inspection contingencies? Pest contingencies? Structural contingencies?
What part of East Seattle is that hot?
And is your market getting a lot of money from overseas buyers? Move up buyers?
As a seller I would never entertain any contingency offer that was based upon the sale of a potential buyer's home, even if it contained that 72 hour right of refusal that is being discussed in another thread. I could never see any actual benefit to a seller, no pros, only cons, such as:
1) Home being labeled contingent and impression of off the market to both the brokers and agents as well as the public ( limiting buyer pool, that would not want to waste the time looking at a house under contract)
2) Valuable time being lost while potential buyer tries to sell their home and possibly if ever.
3) Contract price and maybe other details revealed, even IF someone else/another buyer did indeed look and want to buy.
4) Agents/brokers not wanting to tamper with a potential sold when another contract could be made on another house.
5) It appears to only work in favor of a buyer, who I agree will be more motivated to sell his/her own home once they have "found" one; but wouldn't they be EVEN more motivated if they thought that the house they wanted to place under contract was still "actively" on the market? I know technically it is, but it does not appear so, to me.
6) I don't think it locks in any buyer that truly wanted or could purchase the home. If it is there when the buyer can do so without a contingency then it is...if it isn't then the seller sold it.
The clause and that type of contingency offer just doesn't seem to do anything positive for the seller. Possibly beneficial to the buyer and a RE agent/broker, but, why the seller? It actually appears detrimental to a seller in my viewpoint.
The reality is that most people can't afford to buy a home until they sell their current one, and most can't afford to store all their belongings and move to a rental for who knows how long. That would cost thousands.
Contingency is often a necessity. I consider it very normal. It can be "off the market" but "continue to show" and "accepting backup offers." All buyers know what that means and are totally accepting of that. Agents don't like it because it ties up buyers in backup offers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
