Offering 5% below asking on a country home in Marrakech — sensible or too aggressive?

The inspection timeline also needs to be achievable. A very short condition may look attractive but becomes worthless if the appropriate technical assessment cannot be completed within it.
 
This is where the response deadline and due-diligence period should not be confused. The first limits how long the seller can accept; the second governs what happens after acceptance.
 
Same with deposit timing. “Offer accepted” should not be treated casually as meaning every sum is immediately at risk. Felix needs locally appropriate wording before funds are committed.
 
I would send the commercial terms through the normal channel, then have the formal contract and protections handled locally. A friendly email should not be expected to resolve legal ambiguity.
 
Another caveat: do not let “seller motivation” turn into speculation. Unless the seller discloses a preference, price the property on its merits and use flexible timing as an optional benefit.
 
Has anyone mentioned competing interest? Felix can ask whether other offers exist, but should not abandon his ceiling merely because the answer is vague or urgent-sounding.
 
Yes. If there is genuine competition, stronger proof and fewer avoidable delays may matter more than adding money immediately. Protections against major risks can still remain.
 
The offer rationale could be one paragraph: appreciation for the home, acknowledgement of the asking price, then MAD 3,150,200 reflecting anticipated updates, supported by financing evidence and flexible completion. No debate about market philosophy.
 
I like that, but include the conditions in the same package. Otherwise the seller may react positively to the number and feel that inspection or valuation protection was added later.
 
If inspection reveals significant work, use the evidence once: request a price adjustment, a defined credit if workable, or withdraw under the agreed condition. Repeated small requests will strain the negotiation.
 
Not every finding belongs with the seller. Felix should distinguish pre-existing visible updating already reflected in MAD 3,150,200 from serious unexpected issues found later.
 
That distinction should be written into Felix’s own notes now. It prevents ordinary cosmetic items from being counted twice while preserving room for genuinely material discoveries.
 
The thread seems to have landed on a balanced approach: offer 5% below, but make certainty the selling point. Keep technical, financing, valuation and deposit protections clear rather than pretending the offer is unconditional.
 
One nuance: all four protections may not need identical remedies. A failed finance condition, low valuation and serious inspection result are different events, so the contract should not blur them together.
 
Right. Felix should ask the local adviser to explain each trigger, deadline and consequence in plain language before signing. If he cannot describe when the deposit is exposed, the wording is not clear enough.
 
I would also leave room for the seller to counter on structure, not just price. They might accept MAD 3,150,200 with a preferred completion date or propose a higher price with another concession.
 
Final practical suggestion: submit the offer only after the financing evidence, proposed dates and contingency wording are ready. Speed is useful, but an incomplete offer creates more negotiation than it saves.
 
And if the seller rejects without countering, that does not prove the 5% opening was offensive. It may simply mean their price expectations differ. Felix can reassess against his ceiling rather than apologising upward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top