The distressed motivated seller is very unlikely to sue a wholesaler for weaseling out of a contract because of immaterial external contingencies. After all, the seller is distressed and therefore is probably not in a position to sue for damages. However, the state real estate commission board is just a phone call or an email away to file a complaint for violating licensure law. The seller may be unable to force you to buy the house, but he can bring down a ton of bricks on you from the commission board. They have streamlined access to the judiciary and can put you in front of a judge so fast your head will roll. (Speaking figuratively, of course. I mean, how can you roll a head?...)
That's why a reasonable earnest money deposit that is forfeited as full liquidated damages provides the wholesaler with an exit from the deal without further responsibility to the seller.
Also remember that a neutral 3rd party escrow agent may interplead the earnest money into a court of competent jurisdication in the event of a dispute (e.g., the seller disputes the release of earnest money because he thinks that you somehow hoodwinked him). Now you're in front of a judge that is reading your contract and wondering why you substituted your duty to perform as a buyer with a new duty to perform like a broker (i.e., find a 3rd party to buy the property from the seller).
When you use a contingency that is based on an immaterial issue, I think it's also a breach of ethical conduct. The reason that brokers are licensed is to protect the public. As unlicensed professional investors, we must observe strong ethical guidelines when dealing with the public, especially naïve or uneducated. If the other party is incapable of understanding the transaction, then walk away or find a competent advocate for that party. (Try to get the seller to sign a non-fiduciary disclosure so there's written evidence that the seller knows you are acting on your own account for profit and cannot claim later that he thought you were representing his interests.)
So, for everyone out there, I ask: Would you take the risk of appearing (in writing) that you are acting like a broker without a license, or would you rather keep your contingencies restrained to the material issues between buyer and seller (i.e., condition of the property and your capacity to perform as a buyer [obtaining financing]) by plunking down an earnest money deposit as full liquidated damages? If you cannot find a buyer and you cannot buy the property, then the EMD provides compensation for damages caused by your breach of contract; your EMD is forfeit and your responsibility to the seller ends.
Seems to me that $1000 or $500 or $100 or whatever EMD you can negotiate is less risky and less costly compared to retaining an attorney to defend you in court. You can even offer a promissory note for EMD that is redeemed upon conclusion of the inspection period or upon contract assignment, whichever occurs first. (Never offer a note that you cannot redeem. That's just like writing a bad check and we all know that's fraud.)
Bottom line, there are many folks reading this thread, including many welcome newcomers. If this discussion causes some folks to think critically about how they conduct their business, how they structure ethical deals, and how to stay out of the defendant's chair, then that's a good result. For those who disagree with me and want to keep doing what's always worked for them, that's fine with me. Although, when the dreaded summons from the commission board arrives, I would like to be there to say "I told you so", but that would be mean-spirited.
I stand by what I said, even though I am not an attorney. Every time anyone asks about this issue, I'll say the same.
Legal information is not legal advice. If you want legal advice, talk to an attorney.
Two cents worth. Your mileage may vary.