As-is Delhi condo offer with an inspection contingency

S

StillPorch

Real estate agent
Established
Our offer accepts the Delhi condo in its present condition but also includes an inspection contingency. The seller now says that requesting information or a credit goes against the spirit of an as-is offer.

We priced it on the assumption that the seller would not make repairs. We did not intend to give up the right to walk away if inspection uncovered a major problem that changed the financing costs. How should those two ideas be separated in practice? I’m especially interested in genuinely completed comparables near Delhi, the response deadline, and possible deposit exposure—not asking prices or broad market headlines.
 
They can coexist. As-is usually means the seller is not promising repairs or a renegotiation; an inspection contingency may still let the buyer terminate if its wording and deadline cover the discovery. Asking for a credit is a new negotiation. The seller can refuse it, but that is different from saying you cannot inspect.
 
What does the contingency actually make conditional: your satisfaction, defects above some threshold, or only receipt of an inspection report? Also check whether financing has its own condition. The answer may turn on those details, the notice procedure, and the deadline rather than the phrase “as-is.”
 
I would separate three things: requesting records or access, demanding repairs, and exercising a termination right. They are not interchangeable. The seller may reasonably reject repairs and credits under the agreed pricing approach, but refusing information needed for a permitted inspection is a different issue.
 
For comparables, completed sales are useful only if condition is accounted for. A renovated condo nearby does not establish the as-is value of one needing major work. Ask for recent completed transactions in the same micro-market, then note building condition, size, floor, parking and any obvious renovation differences.
 
One caveat: an inspection clause may protect against physical defects without protecting against a lender’s valuation or lending decision. If the real risk is an appraisal gap or more expensive financing, do not assume inspection language automatically covers it. The financing condition needs to be read separately.
 
Seller motivation matters too. A seller choosing an as-is bid may have valued certainty more than the absolute price. A credit request can therefore be received badly even when it is permitted as a proposal. If the defect is serious, a clean choice between proceeding and timely withdrawal may be stronger than prolonged bargaining.
 
When you say the problem would change financing costs, do you mean the defect would reduce the appraisal, the lender might decline the condo, or you would need to preserve cash for repairs? Those lead to different arguments. Only the first two are directly tied to the financing process.
 
That distinction helps. I used “financing costs” too broadly. The concern is that a major defect could affect valuation or lender willingness, while also requiring us to keep more cash available. We are not expecting the seller to repair everything. Our preferred protection is the ability to exit; a credit would only be an alternative if both sides wanted to continue.
 
Then put the alternatives in writing before the contingency expires: proceed as agreed, mutually amend the price or credit, or terminate under the stated condition. Do not let an informal credit discussion consume the time available for formal notice.
 
For the Delhi comparison, insist that whoever supplies the completed examples explains why each is comparable. Same broad area is not enough. A sale in the same development or a closely similar building will usually tell you more than a superficially similar condo several neighbourhoods away.
 
The seller’s view of the “spirit” may explain their negotiating position, but the signed wording governs the available choices. Because local interpretation and deposit consequences matter, have a Delhi property lawyer read the exact clause and proposed notice before relying on a general meaning of as-is.
 
Be especially careful with the deposit. A buyer can have a valid concern yet create avoidable exposure by missing a deadline, using the wrong notice method, or terminating for a reason the clause does not cover. Confirm the mechanics before announcing that you are walking away.
 
You can also separate financing proof from defect negotiation. Showing that funding is otherwise progressing may reassure the seller that this is not buyer’s remorse. Just avoid providing reassurance in language that could be read as waiving the financing or inspection protection.
 
Sofia’s clarification also means the inspection report should identify the physical issue and likely scope, while the lender or appraiser addresses financing impact. One should not be presented as proof of the other. Keep both trails clear and factual.
 
Requesting a credit and invoking the inspection contingency are both available paths, but neither is entirely comfortable. The first may imply that the defect is acceptable if the price changes; the second could end a purchase the buyer might otherwise want.

I would not assume a credit request is consequence-free merely because it is allowed. First confirm the defect, the lender or appraisal impact, and the response deadline in the written terms. If the condo remains suitable at a documented adjustment, propose that clearly. If the problem defeats the basis of the offer, the cleaner course is to make the contingency decision on time.
 
Did the seller reject access and factual questions, or only reject the proposed credit? That difference now seems central. If inspection access remains available, complete it promptly and preserve the deadline. If access itself is being blocked despite the written contingency, that needs to be raised immediately.
 
The practical sequence is now fairly clear: obtain the inspection, identify the exact defect, ask the lender how it affects approval or valuation, compare with genuinely completed local sales, and have the clause and notice process checked. Then choose among proceeding, proposing a mutual amendment, or exiting on time—without relying on anyone’s interpretation of “spirit.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top