However, he asked me to sign a one-year Exclusive Right to Represent agreement, as presented to him by his brokerage.His interpretation is that it applies only when he materially assists me, but I think the boilerplate brokerage language he was given reads much more broadly:"If during the term of this Agreement Buyer enters into a contract for the purchase of Property through the services or efforts of the Broker or Buyer’s Brokerage Firm, or by or through any other persons during the term of this Agreement" (emphasis mine).My concern is that, under my interpretation, if a fellow real estate investor wants to unload a property or if I get pointed to an opportunity by a former agent, colleague, or friend, this agreement could create an obstacle to moving forward with the deal.In the end, I didn’t sign.

The seller responded that since the issue was repaired and he believes there is no ongoing problem, he did not think it needed to be disclosed.When I asked him to extend the inspection period so I could follow up with the repair company and conduct my own inspection, he declined.I disagree with this interpretation.

We have to interpret the phrase to the best of our abilities, aka guess.

My interpretation of the CA law is that unless the medical condition constitutes a disability there is no obligation on the part of the landlord to let them out of the lease.

However, lenders often add their own requirements, and many interpret the “intent to occupy” as a longer-term commitment, sometimes defaulting to the 1-year rule as a safeguard. 

To make it even worse, my attorney has advised that the 90 days has to be three full calendar months (in his interpretation) - meaning that the 90 days starts from the 1st of the month following your notice to them.

Quote from @Timothy Franklin: Okay @Jay Hinrichs that makes sense to me, I didn't interpret it like that.

This has been interpreted to mean "any increase in tenant expense to live there".

This leaves a lot of room for interpretation and that is exactly the issue we are having at the moment.

Because this clause wasn't in the lease agreement,You hear these kinds of excuses and explanations (vary by circumstances) everywhere you go nowadays.We're becoming a nation where the Law is subject to personal excuses by indviduals that aren't suposed to interpret laws.