Contingency clause? Fairly common; everyone's coming from somewhere else (usually Califelony, LOL) and as long as the home is GONNA close (we can easily research the area and market there), it is probably OK.

Our document provisions a kickout clause with notice, allowing us to continue to receive offers and displace or compel the deal in place to remove all contingencies should something come along we want to work on.

The time frame is usually 30 days and can be extended with all parties' approval. 

Closed many a deal that way over the years! 
Having said ALLL that . . . it will rarely win over a clean and unencumbered deal.

It makes me think of "motivation".  So many different interpretations.  I guess it may depend on who is in the driver's  seat.

They are used quite often in our market.  We use a seperate addendum on these type sales.

We are seeing more of them these days. A year ago you never saw them. Common? No. And it varies from community to community when I look at MLS stats.

I see it once in a while. If done is accompanied by a 48-hour kickout clause. I think Subject to the sale of offers are not taken as seriously as those that don't have the clause.

The contingency happens here and just bumped one.

If the supply was better probably see more.

Prudent sellers avoid these types of clauses. I am not a fan. If used the period of tiime is short. They usually turn out to be a swing and a miss.

About once a week, just out of our office

I see fsbos accepting these often, those with agents seldom do.

They can work if all are on board and everything moves forward rather smoothly. I have done plenty and the seller usually drives the transaction regarding terms, price and conditions.

Rare, but occasionally they work out for both buyers and sellers.

Not very... we have been in a seller's market for years... little reason for a seller to accept that kind of contingency. I don't recommend it to my sellers and discourage buyers.

The local real estate market is dominated by those who are purchasing their 4th, 5th even 6th home. They typically have sufficient equity, resources to avoid such situations. There are simply too many buying directly from their 401 to willing become non-competitive by creating this house of cards.

Yes, it happens, but not that often in the population with which I work.

Weak off but not often mentioned with investment properties.

Might be a contingency. If the seller has no problem, neither have I. But...

Very common for many

We do not accept them as sellers. I can't remember how many years it has been but it's a long time. When house sells, come on over.

I see it now & then. If they have a "hot" property they can get the right buyer who will wait. If not it's just another nail in the coffin. 

Not that common 

In our area I don't remember when was last time.

Very rare. I’ll post a screen shot of this clause from my contract when I’m back in my office

Steve,

I think this falls in the realm of "it depends" for me.  A

They are no longer common in our very active market.

Still see it and see lots of expires that have that .

Not a fan Steve although they pop up now and then. The "For Sale" property must be in excellent condition and expect a kick-out clause. A necessary evil at times they can be negotiated to alleviate the aches & pains with understanding and willing principals. Often hand holding is part of the equation too. 

Not common and I will emphasize that this has to be taken seriously to be effective. Just putting in there means nothing if one doesn't act on it aggressively. Selling to buy another home has to be verified & vetted to be real or everyone is spinning wheels

Not common. When agents want to use them, there are lots of questions about how to use them properly.

I work in three states and the clauses are slightly different in each and some local areas have created an additional clause that says "contingent on the settlement of..." so that buyers who have their home Under Contract can a avoid the home sale contingency and use the slightly more palatable clause instead. 

I am seeing a sharp increase as people want to move, but need a house to move to before they will sell.  

If the buyer does not have a contract on their existing home, the "subject to the sale of..." will go nowhere.

Must have a contract in place with a closing date not too far out, and even then the buyer has no negotiating power.

Eve

I just closed one with the contingency of a home closing in another state.  The seller held on and we got it done.  I represented the buyer relocating to our area. 

Not at all common in my market Steve Penner . If I had to guess I'd say maybe 1 out of 200 listings would have such wording.

It happens, but as a seller's agent I would be loath to recommend accepting such a contingency as it could be a can of worms.

 Not common at all. 

We call them contingent sales because the sale is contingent on the sale of the buyer's first property in order to furnish the cash to buy the second property.

They are not that common although in a slowing market we tend to see them more often.

If the circumstances and details of the first sale make sense, such an offer can be acceptable...unless a non-contingent competing offer is available. 

Very rare - I have not seen one in over 10 years.  Rarely accepted.

It is more common during a slow market. "Subject to the close of..." is more common. 

More than they were 10 years ago.  People are waiting to find the perfect house before listing theirs, quite often.  Most of the time now we say "come back when your house is in escrow."

50% of condo deals and 35% of all co-op deals here are all cash. Anything beyond a financing contingency isn't too common. That said, in very limited situations it might be workable but it definitely isn't an ideal offer.

I have a listing that is contingent on a replacement home.