Aaron Meadows go to Barnes and Noble and buy a copy of Ken McElroy's "The ABC's of Real Estate Investing" and "The Advanced Guide to Real Estate Investing."

Some may argue this, but if you start making concessions without the company you are opening a door. 

It's been argues this makes the agent more incentivized to work with their seller since they also represent you.

We will be finalizing the deal later this morning so I'll propose a very modest rental only to cover costs and hopefully he won't be able to argue with it. 

I would assume that her side would argue what you are saying though - this is why I would like to know if there is anybody, lawyer or not, who has dealt with this before.

Maybe they would argue they aren't going to cover a claim since you signed something saying the property is properly up to code, etc. 

@Joe Villeneuve We all understand 2+2 = 4 and I am pretty sure that 4+4=8 and no one is arguing over that point.You are clearly not wanting to answer the question.

However, I would argue that very often in negotiations, the buying party is trying to convince the seller that their product is worth a lower value.

I would argue that if a property cannot support PM costs it's not a good investment and you should consider selling it.

This is an interesting BP article arguing that the 1% rule is dead:https://www.biggerpockets.com/blog/1-percent-rule-deadI personally still use it amongst other metrics, but it's not game over for me if a property doesn't meet the 1% rule.