Hi, Sally - Of course, it depends upon the market where you work.  In my market, most homes are in very good condition, and the home inspection is not anything to fear.  In my entire career, which is longer than the home inspection industry has existed, I've had just one transaction fall through over a home inspection - and that was a case of buyer/seller remorse that really had nothing to do with the inspection.

As to the "free look" provision, some buyers ask for it, but most sellers reject that provision.  And rightfully so.  The seller should certainly be given an opportunity to "fix" any inspection items.  I always tell people that it's not likely anything will come up on the inspection that you would not have fixed before, if only you had realized the problem.

I don't recommend that sellers get a home inspection in advance because I think it almost implies a warranty that everything is "okay" - I'd rather have the buyer's inspector tell them that.  But it does depend upon your market, and a seller's inspection might be the thing to do somewhere else.

Sally:

Good post.  I think all homes should be inspected.  There is no perfect home.  Just because it passed the building inspection doesn't mean everything is okay. 

Ah ha!  Margaret points out a good point: REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL!  The GAR contracts used to have a financing contingency, and the buyer could either choose to do an inspection or buy "as is".  Our contract was changed, and now the buyer can request an inspection, or have a specified due diligence (free look) period, or purchase "as is".  I have heard that next year's contracts will have the financing contingency and the inspection option removed, and will have only either a due diligence period or a cash, "as is" purchase option. 

This will be better for both buyer and seller.  Problems with our current inspection clause:  the seller must disclose anything identified in an inspection to future potential buyers, and the seller only has to repair; the buyer cannot specify how the repairs will be made, nor can they address cosmetic issues.  For example, on a recent contract we had, there was rotten wood.  With the requested inspection, the contract specifies what is considered structural and specifically states that the seller can repair the defect or desolve the contract if they choose not to repair.  The seller repaired the rotten wood but the buyer expected the wood replaced.  Had the buyer requested the "free look", the buyer could have specifically requested how he wanted the repairs made. 

With the "free look", the seller does not get a copy of the inspection, so no disclosure is required, and the buyers can request whatever they want - they can even request that the home be painted or wallpaper removed.  Of course, the seller has the option to say "no" and walk from the contract and start over.  Once the "free look" period expires, the contract turns into a cash, "as is" sale. 

I'm in GA, and I guess this article is GA specific.  Thanks for sharing!

Sally Hardman