Hey guys, 

First time homebuyer and Biggerpockets fan here. I have a newly ratified contract on a Hanahan home that I believe to be significantly below market value. The home inspection was performed today and found an active termite infestation along with significant termite damage in the crawl space to the point of causing much of the living room floor to sag.  The rest of the house is in good condition. The offer included a contingency period and the seller has expressed that they do not wish to perform any repairs. They also had a second offer "As-Is" which they turned down in favor of mine for a small increase in price. 

It may seem that the solution is to either bite the bullet for repair costs or back out, however there are specific terms in the contract (and I believe SC law) which apply to termites and termite damage above and beyond any contingencies or "as-is" agreements. Namely,

"If the wood infestation report reveals the presence or indication of or damages by termite infestation or other wood destroying
organisms, Seller shall remedy such deficiencies and shall furnish the Buyer with a CL100 wood infestation report"

and 

"If the Seller does not make the repairs and treatment, the Buyer shall have the option to
(1) accept the Property in its present condition, (2) negotiate with the Seller for the payment of these repairs and treatment, or
(3) terminate this Contract by Delivering Notice of Termination to the Seller."

What I don't see here is what to do if the seller refuses to make repairs and refuses to negotiate any concessions in the sale price. This seems to be a specific carve out that requires the seller to fix this specific type of damage, whereas other types of damage could be put on the buyer to fix. So in essence they are bound to sell to me, and bound to repair the damage, but it also seems like they could choose to ignore the damage and refuse to negotiate, forcing me to back out and then sell to someone else. That seems to defeat the purpose of this specific legal requirement. Why say, "Seller shall remedy," when they can just force the buyer to fix by not negotiating?

I am not asking anyone to legally parse the language here, only providing context for those who have possibly worked in the region or dealt with similar situations. However this turns out I hope to meet any realtors or investors in the area going foreword! Thanks!