In article , "Oscar" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

Nope. They can constructively walk away by not making any more efforts
to rectify whatever the inspector imagines is wrong. At that point
they won't be breaching any contract. The agreement was that the sale
would be consumated if ceratin conditions and stipulations were met
and resolved.

LOL... nice try, but breaching a contract, is breaching a contract.

Oscar, I really wonder how carefully you have read the real estate contracts
you've been a party to in the past. A typical inspection clause allows the
buyer to cancel the contract if the inspection discloses major defects that
the seller refuses to fix. The seller is *not* required to fix *anything*
unless he has previously agreed to do so. If an inspection discloses major
defects, any of the following can happen:

(a) the buyer can waive the inspection contingency ("I don't care, I'll buy it
anyway");

(b) the buyer can cancel the deal ("Give me my deposit back, I'm outta here");

(c) the seller may offer to reduce the price of the home; the buyer is under
no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(d) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the buyer's expense; the
buyer is under no obligation to agree (see (b) above);

(e) the seller may offer to repair the defects at the seller's expense, in
which case the *buyer* is probably breaching the contract if he refuses to
consummate the transaction;

(f) the buyer may ask the seller to reduce the price, or repair the defects at
the seller's expense; the seller is under no obligation to agree;

(g) the seller can tell the buyer to pound sand.

In the absence of a specific written agreement by the seller to make
repairs, under which of these scenarios is the seller breaching the contract
by refusing to do so?