Well, I don’t really like them, but there is a good side to this type of contract if you are the seller. Guess what it is? The buyer will typically pay you more with a contingency to sell their house first than they would without it.
I see it all the time. A buyer with a house to sell gets really nervous about not knowing where they will be living once they sell their old home. Now, unless the buyer already has a contract on the house they are selling, I always counter back with a kickout clause. That basically means that IF the seller would like to sell the house to another buyer who does not have a contingency, they give the contingency buyer a certain amount of time to remove the contingency or back out of the deal.
Another thing I like is that IF the contingency buyer can and does remove their contingency, you have a back up buyer. Sometimes it helps when negotiating repairs if the buyer knows there is somebody else wanting the house if the deal falls apart!
I don’t really care for this kind of contract though when I am working with a buyer…..for all the same reasons. When I have a buyer who wants to write a contingency offer, I usually try to get them to just wait until we sell their house first. Here is why I don’t think they are a good idea for the buyer who can’t possibly remove the contingency if needed: Any decent realtor is going to counter back with a kickout clause. That means that if another buyer comes along they will lose the house. If no such buyer comes along, that means that the house would still be there when the buyer’s old house eventually sells, and they could probably strike a better deal at that point.
