There is no normal…this link may be of help.

https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/how-long-can-a-seller-take-to-respond-to-your-offer/

You may want to have your own agent rather than using the seller’s agent, to make sure they are working in only your best interest. Right now, the sellers agent has no reason to quickly present your offer, rather, they will wait to allow time for more potentially higher offers to come in.

It sounds like your market is similar to many: fast and multiple offers. That is the reason for the delay-sellers are hoping for multiple offers.

When I worked as an agent the deadline for responding was always written in the offer. Legally agents had to present offers to sellers as soon as possible, even if it meant calling them at 10:00 pm and telling them you were sending over an offer. Sounds like that's not the case for you or the sellers told the agent they wouldn't review offers prior to Monday. I guess the good news is that the agent won't be presenting any offers until that time.

You should have written a response time into the contract. Son and DIL missed on their first choice house twice because the agent didn’t present the offer quickly-in a slow market. Our last buyer gave us a deadline for response and we did the same on the house we bought.

My SO is a realtor who will present offers at 11:00 PM on a Saturday night if necessary. When we bought this house our realtor presented our offer on a Saturday night and beat out two other offers that came in on Monday morning. That's how our market works. When my sister sold her house the process was lackadasical in comparison, it depends upon your area.

It really depends on the offer and the seller - there is no "normal". Sometimes, in a hot market, offers will be held back, so that all can be presented to the seller on the same day, but other times a seller wants to sell right away and will take offers within the hour they're presented to the agent. Usually it's detailed as part of the selling offer in the contract. In your case, maybe the owners also told the agent they don't want to see any offers until Monday - you don't know if the agent or the owners decided on the timing.

Well its monday and the seller will not hear our offer until tomorrow because the seller requested only verbal first offers and apparently he was at the doctor’s today. yeah yeah, I’m not thrilled about our agent either- she was picked for us by our lender, and we do have a contract with her, and she just so happens to also be the seller’s agent. I will be really mad if we miss out on this house because of this nonsense. The bad thing is, this house has been on the market for a year in a market where most houses sell in days, so you would think they would want to get the offer in and get the negotiation process started.

Why is it still on the market after a year if everything is selling within days? Did she suggest the offer price? Did she do a Comparative Market Analysis? Remember she works for the seller too. Why hasn't it sold before.......???

She works for the seller first. That is who pays the commission. Get a new agent if this doesn't go thru. Since when does a lender "pick" your agent? Something is not right in this.

You first erred in using the seller's agent. You did not have to use her just because the bank said so. Her first loyalty is to the seller. That is where their commission comes from. They want to make the deal for as much money as they can, as does the seller. An agent should put in an offer when it is received.

The lender “picked “ our agent as a service that they offer. If we use the agent they picked, we get $1000 back after closing. I agree though, I’m over it, if this doesn’t go through I’m using another agent

seller requested only verbal first offers

Verbal agreements for real estate are legally meaningless in the US and Canada as they violate the Statute of Frauds.

In our hot market, typically listings state that all offers will be considered on such and such date.

Ok it’s Wednesday, and the seller is supposed to go to the real estate agent’s office today to hear the offer. He’s an 80 year man, so I’m trying to be understanding, but we’ll see! I feel like he should be understanding too because, being 80, he let the upkeep go and our offer does reflect repairs we are going to need to do. We’ll see! Fingers crossed!!

My fingers are crossed for you too!

We’ll we had to revise our offer to full price because in the time the realtor waited, another couple came in with a full price offer, so to be considered we also had to revise our offer. I’m not happy because I feel that what the realtor did is unethical, but in the area we are looking in, there’s not a lot of houses and I do want the house. So, we will know in a few hours

Good Luck!

How do you know for sure there was another offer? The agent might have lied to you.

We always assume the worst in a situation. You are dealing with an elderly owner. They may be very difficult clients for the agent, too. I'm sure the delay was maddening. I do suggest that you continue to look elsewhere or make other arrangements. I can see the competing offer waiving inspections in order to be the superior offer. Don't do that unless you are very experienced buyer with previous renovation experience. There will always be another property. This is a financial transaction not an emotional transaction.

I don't know... about just summarily saying not to waive inspections. It depends on the buyers market and their risk tolerance. We just lost out on a $1.5 million house that was also sitting (because showings were very limited by the owner). We offered full price but did not waive the mortgage contingency or the inspections. The other offer waived both.

You could lose the bid war yes, but you could avoid a termite infested, or sinking foundation nightmare. There is a poster on here dealing with that right now.

Thank you all. we did end up losing out on that house and are now des desperately searching for a house. Apparently everyone wants a house in our price rngerange, because as soon as we see one we like, it already has an offer on it. its getting a little discouraging, but i guess well find one eventually!

You need a good agent to look for you. Ditch the one you've had, even with the minor discount. Not worth it.

One key to success in real estate transactions is to get the home under your control. To do this, I waive inspection contingencies regularly.

Waiving the inspection contingency doesn't mean you can't have an inspection, you can still have an inspection to verify the completeness of seller's disclosures. There are few major problems in a home that sellers living in that home would be unaware of.

If my inspection finds a major problem, I just renegotiate anyway. If the sellers refuse, I terminate the agreement because the sellers failed to disclose something they should have. Of course, they can get an attorney, who is going to point out that suing me will take a couple of years and a couple hundred thousand dollars (even if they win), during which time the house will remain off the market.

Sorry, you lost out on the house, thanks for updating us. I agree with Bry, you should put yourself in as strong a position as possible and this may mean waiving the inspection contingency, offering full price (most homes here are going for over), and are quick to close.

Ummm, ok, i have a question about waiving an inspection contigency. i had also thought that would be easier and really, every home inspection weve ever gotten hasnt been worth the paper its printed on. But i thought you had to get an inspection as part of the loan. No No?

There are different kinds of inspections. Home inspections are usually very good, and certainly worth the paper. A few inspectors are not so good. A termite inspection (and repairs) might be necessary for a lender. Septic inspections, roofing, fireplaces/chimney, wells, etc, are all important.

Here's the distinction: a contingency in a purchase offer means that the buyer has the right to get and approve/accept the inspection as a condition of the purchase. To waive that contingency means that you can still get the inspection, just that your acceptance of it is not required. To reject the inspection is not a reason to rescind the purchase offer.

Iloveto Cook

i thought you had to get an inspection as part of the loan. No No?

As noted above, there are different kind of inspections. And some lenders may not require any inspection at all. I've bought literally dozens of houses, all on municipal services, and don't recall ever seeing such a requirement by the lender. But every situation is different. Ask your lender if they require inspections and/or inspection clauses. And which ones exactly.

***************

If my inspection finds a major problem, I just renegotiate anyway. If the sellers refuse, I terminate the agreement because the sellers failed to disclose something they should have.

In our area (and a different legal framework) deposits of $50,000++ are typical. So both parties better be sure of their legal grounds.

**********

sushipup2

To waive that contingency means that you can still get the inspection, just that your acceptance of it is not required.

If I'm the seller in a seller's market, why would I even bother accepting such an offer--especially if I had read bry911 post above!

********

In our last purchase, we didn't include an inspection clause. The seller accepted and then notified us that the house had had extensive smoke damage a few years before. Safeguarding themselves in case we attempted to use its previous non-disclosure as an out.

you should put yourself in as strong a position as possible and this may mean waiving the inspection contingency, offering full price (most homes here are going for over), and are quick to close

If you can afford to do this, have plenty of cash to bring to close if the appraisal comes in low without overextending yourself and are prepared to accept the consequences when the current bubble inevitably pops. If you don’t have the financial ability to do all this and stay solvent in a health emergency, unexpected major home repair, or temporary job loss, then be patient, rent, and save until you do. The sharks will be circling in a few years to pick up all the foreclosures on overextended upside down homeowners convinced that they desparately needed to overpay on a dream home.

Lenders generally only require an appraisal and not a home inspection. The exception to that is FHA or VA loans. They have an appraisal and inspection requirement and won't lend unless certain items are fixed that are discovered during the inspection. They do require the seller to fix these as well so something to be aware of as a seller when accepting an offer with these types of loans.

"If my inspection finds a major problem, I just renegotiate anyway. If the sellers refuse, I terminate the agreement because the sellers failed to disclose something they should have."

It's my understanding that disclosure only applies to things the seller actually knows about. If the seller doesn't know there's a termite infestation, for example, it wouldn't be disclosed and there wouldn't be any legal repercussions since there was no prior knowledge. If there's proof the seller knew, that's a different issue -- but the key is proof, not he said/she said.

I do not know if in MY STATE if one waives the inspection contingency and then chooses to walk away (or negotiates and fails) the earnest money is lost; I also don't know if it varies by state. That can be a hefty chunk of change and not worth the gamble for many people.

I am not independently wealthy, and waiving an inspection -- which is the "out card" -- and forfeiting tens of thousands of dollars or buying a potential cr*phole because I was so eager to get a home - any home - is not something within the realm of consideration for me. Or for a vast majority of people, I imagine. For some who can afford the financial consequences, yes -- but if people are having trouble simply affording a home in the first place, they shouldn't be waiving contingencies.

ETA: But OTOH, if you get a cr*ppy inspector the inspection isn't worth the paper it's printed on. That happened to me. My dead uncle could have done better. No recourse, either -- home inspectors are not required to be licensed in my state, no minimum entry standard or standards of practice. The inspection on the other house I was supposed to buy (long story...) was fab-u-lous -- he caught every little thing, and as a result I was able to negotiate close to $20K off the purchase price. Unfortunately, he wasn't available a couple months later when I needed him for this house...sigh...

It's my understanding that disclosure only applies to things the seller actually knows about. If the seller doesn't know there's a termite infestation, for example, it wouldn't be disclosed and there wouldn't be any legal repercussions since there was no prior knowledge. If there's proof the seller knew, that's a different issue -- but the key is proof, not he said/she said.

I said I terminate the agreement because the seller failed to disclose something they should have. I really don't care if they did, or did not, know. I am not out to prove anything, they can't sell the property until we agree to terminate the current purchase agreement and in a seller's market no one is going to keep their property off the market and pay the attorney fees to sue me for specific performance.

Let me be perfectly clear, there is some small risk in doing this, it is possible that someone could decide to keep their house off the market and refuse to release you while getting their attorney involved. That would be exceedingly rare.

For that matter, inspection contingencies don't work the way people typically use them. An inspection contingency is only viable when it discovers a material defect that wasn't reasonably knowable before the offer was made. This precludes most things that people regularly use to back out of the contract. The reason that these cases rarely end up in court, is because it just isn't worth the fight. Sellers just return the earnest money rather than pay a retainer to an attorney and sue for specific performance, and when sellers do... the buyers usually end up having to buy the house.

If something is found and the buyer wants to walk away and there is no inspection contingency, is the earnest money forfeited? My understanding is it may very well be -- in which case, I would not take risk, it's not chump change. So an inspection contingency is the "out card" -- meaning I get my earnest money deposit back. It is worth losing out on the offer in order to avoid that very expensive risk as far as I'm concerned. But, like anything, risk tolerance is highly individualized. $50K might indeed be chump change to some...

If something is found and the buyer wants to walk away and there is no inspection contingency, is the earnest money forfeited? My understanding is it may very well be -- in which case, I would not take risk, it's not chump change.

I guess I should clarify just in case someone doesn't have a realtor and is attempting to do this on their own, which you really should not. I don't terminate the contract, I ask to be released from the contract because there was a failure to disclose a material defect. The seller can send the release along with a release of the earnest money and I will not cancel the contract until they do. The terms of that release are whatever terms we agree to, and I certainly wouldn't agree to $50k.

In real estate transactions the buyer and seller are over the same barrel. The seller may well have your earnest money but most sellers depend on the home selling in order to buy another home or get rid of both mortgages. Sellers are typically not prone to keep houses off the market for a year while they fight it out in a seller's market, they simply return your earnest money and move on.

---

I would also like to reiterate, this is protection from a major problem. If you want the dishwasher in good working order when you move in, this is not the tactic for you. I accept that I am going to own all the repair and maintenance issues that an inspection typically uncovers. This is some protection from catastrophic level losses. I am also more knowledgeable than most on these issues, but you can pay someone who is knowledgeable to look at the house with you, there is no rule against touring a home with a contractor.

Outcomes of using an inspection clause will depend on the way they're written.

For instance, the one commonly used in our jurisdiction is: “This agreement is conditional upon the inspection of the property by a home inspector of the purchaser’s choice and expense, and receipt of a report satisfactory to him, in his sole and absolute discretion.”*

But if you're a seller, you might want to include additional wording that "if the amount to correct all deficiencies is less than $1,000, the seller has the right to correct the deficiencies and the buyer is still required to close the deal."*

Better these than a high-risk game of chicken.

The sole and absolute discretion verbiage is a Canadian thing and not something U.S. courts have allowed, so far as I know. The standard in the U.S. is that an inspection contingency clause can't be exercised for something that should have been known by a buyer when they made the offer.

Different states have ruled differently on "should have been known," but the general idea is that you have a duty to make a reasonable inspection of the property before the offer and any items that would be discovered by reasonable inspection are not grounds to activate the contingency. Basically, in Canada the courts have ruled that an offer with a subjective inspection contingency is not in bad faith and in the U.S. it is generally ruled as bad faith.

"The sole and absolute discretion verbiage is a Canadian thing and not something U.S. courts have allowed,"

Ah, one of the challenges of getting advice on the Internet. It's not wrong advice, it's just not applicable advice.

If a house is bought without any financing or inspection contingencies then is the seller obligated to make the house available during the time between accepted offer and closing? I know it's customary but is it legally required. Just trying to assess risk of delaying inspection. There's a local inspector who is available for hire to go along with me to showing - I'm thinking of going that route. I wonder though how detailed he can be? Would he be allowed to bring a ladder and climb up on a roof? Either way, still would be better than nothing.

To the above unrelated post--ask your agent. It's not legally required based on my knowledge.

My question is not unrelated. It's in response to Bry's suggestion to not have inspection contingency, but to inspect for serious defects after offer is accepted. Is there a risk of not being able to get in to inspect and having to go ahead ad purchase as is. Maybe a small risk but still something to consider?

"...but to inspect for serious defects after offer is accepted."

But if there's no clause that states something about inspection or buyer has right/access to inspect property, something along those lines, can the seller refuse to allow the buyer access to the property prior to the deal closing?

But if there's no clause that states something about inspection or buyer has right/access to inspect property, something along those lines, can the seller refuse to allow the buyer access to the property prior to the deal closing?

First, let's not give every possibility equal credibility. People in real estate deals are not usually that contentious. If someone is acting like that, you should consider backing out of the deal regardless of whether or not you have an inspection contingency because that sketch.

Next, the answer is not quite so simple... You have the right to investigate the veracity of the contract. Since the disclosures are part of that contract, you can investigate that the disclosures were made appropriately. Which essentially means you can inspect the property for signs of damage that the sellers are attempting to hide. Moreover, it is significant evidence of bad faith if the seller refuses to let you inspect.

So the answer is just tell them when you make the offer that you would like to have some people look at the home to establish a timeline for your moving in. They are going to say yes.

My experience, as a buyer: you present your offer and YOU set the deadline for a response.

You present at 11:30 and include in the (written) offer that it is good until 11:30 the following day (or whatever time frame you want). The realtor MUST present your offer to the seller. If you don't hear back by your deadline, your offer is dead.

If your offer is a good one, the seller would be stupid not to respond to you, even if it is a counter.

We recently sold our home and the buyer waived all inspections and contingencies. They had an inspection for their own “information” and we ended up giving them credit for some minor things that came up. Wish we didn’t do that, but wanted to be nice.