For both houses we have purchased (sequentially, not concurrently :-)), we paid for the inspector. Because the purpose of inspection is for the buyer to understand the actual condition of the home, it would be a conflict of interest for the seller to pay for it.

Any necessary repairs flagged by the inspector then become part of the negotiation over final price/terms of the sale. In a seller's market, the buyer might take responsibility for fixing whatever is necessary; in a buyer's market, the seller might be willing to cut the price or do the repairs before closing.

The buyer should consider whether they would prefer a price cut, cash back at closing, or for the seller to perform repairs. Each of these possibilities has its own pros and cons. On the seller side, the same choices apply, but with different considerations of advantage and disadvantage.

In any case, its only a real negotiation if you're willing to walk away if no accommodation can be reached. For example, our first house had a roof that needed replacing. We got an estimate from a roofer, but the sellers were only willing to pay for half. Since we didn't *need* to buy the house, we said that was unacceptable. The realtors were so anxious to make the sale (and the follow on sales from our seller buying another house and their seller buying a new house), that they paid us the rest of the money from their commissions. If you are a buyer, in the current market, these are the sorts of concessions you may be able to negotiate.
Source(s):
Personal experience


Permalink | Report