Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Wholesaling
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated 4 days ago, 11/22/2024

User Stats

4
Posts
0
Votes
Corey Gelineau
  • Realtor
  • Lewiston/Moscow and surrounding areas
0
Votes |
4
Posts

About Inspection Contingency

Corey Gelineau
  • Realtor
  • Lewiston/Moscow and surrounding areas
Posted

The inspection contingency is used to legally back out of a contract due to the property being in an unacceptable condition upon inspecting the property. Yet, it seems common practice for wholesalers to use this contingency to back out of the contract simply because they have not found a buyer within the inspection period. This appears to be a misuse of said contingency. What are your thoughts on this? And if it is a misuse of the inspection contingency, aren't wholesalers who do this running the risk of being sued and even being forced to purchase the property themselves? 

Loading replies...